/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 28 Headlines A & A MARKET: "Singh" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Bojorquez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation AIXTRON SE: Brodsky & Smith Investigating Sec. Law Violations AIXTRON SE: "Bettis" Suit Seeks Remedies Under Exchange Act ALMONTE BEACH: "Huitzil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime AMERICAN HOMESECURES: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages AMERICAN PRIME: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: "Farrow" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages ANZ BANK: Court to Hear Final Appeal in Bank Fee Class Action ARROW LINEN: "Paige" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages & OT ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES: Feb. 25 BNL Class Action Court Date Set AVENUE A CLASSIC: "Sierra" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT Wages AVID LIFE: Suit Over Ashley Madison Consolidated in St. Louis B&F DETASSELING: "Perez-Perez" Suit Seeks Money Damages & Relief BAKER HUGHES: Falsely Classifies Directional Drillers, Suit Says BERJAC OF OREGON: Investors Despair Over Ponzi Scheme Recovery BESTCARE INC: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BLACKHAWK SPECIALTY: "Marcel" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces "Soueidan" Suit Over Merger Deal BUILDING UNLIMITED: "Baca" Suit Seeks OT Pay & Minimum Wages C.N.A. TRADING: "Zhu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Sued for Minimum Wage Violation CANADA: Ontario Court Set to Hear Arguments in G20 Class Action CASEY'S GENERAL: Attorneys Fees Order Expected January CASEY'S GENERAL: Settlement in FCRA Suit Has Initial Approval CENTURY INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Defective AK-47 Rifles CHAMBERS STREET: MOU Reached to Resolve Merger Suits CHAMPION ROOFING: "Smth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: E. Coli Outbreak Probe Widens as Sales Decline CLASS VALET: "Asalde" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Sued for H-1B Violations CONNS INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending CORTE CAFE: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages COURIER LOGISTICS: "Curry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime CRYSTAL CLEAR: "Cates" Suit Seeks Recovery of Monetary Damages DANCO METAL: "Green" Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wages DEPUY INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Wrong Sized Hip Implants DEXCEL PHARMA: Fax Ads Violate TCPA, "Marcus" Suit Claims DIRECT GENERAL: "Willis" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages DRAFTKINGS INC: "Turner" Suit Alleges Kentucky Law Violation DREAM KITCHENS: "Borzym " Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages DRILL-CHEM: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Other Damages EOS PRODUCTS: Settles "Cronin" Lip Balm Class Action EXACT VALVE SOLUTIONS: Violates FLSA, "Cruz" Suit Claims FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Suits over Tank Refill Business FIRST NIAGARA: "Desmarais" Suit Challenges KeyCorp Merger FISHS EDDY: Faces New York Class Action Over FACTA Violations FLINT, MI: AG Can't Defend Both Snyder, Individual MDEQ Employees FLOOR AND DECOR: Text Ads Violate TCPA, "Reeder" Suit Says FRANK A. REICHL: "East Moline" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Execs Get Sentence in Chemical Spill Cases FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Ex-Owner Gets Sentence in Chemical Spill GLOUCESTER TAXI: "Berge" Suit Alleges Wage Act Violations GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Interstate Chemical" Suit Seeks Treble Damages GFB ENTERPRISES: Diaz Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA GOOGLE INC: UC Berkeley Students File Suit Over E-mail Scanning GOOGLE INC: Court Dismissed Gmail CAPTCHA Class Action HAIR DIMENSIONS: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation HARTFORD GAS: "Aswad" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Premium Pay HEARTWARE INC: Securities Class Suit Filed HENNECOLD STORAGE: "Sutton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations J. C. PENNEY: Defendants File Answer to Texas Securities Action J. C. PENNEY: Defendants File Answer to Ramirez & Ihle Suit J. C. PENNEY: Opposed Renewed Class Cert. Motion in Illinois Case J&M TANK LINES: "Calvillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages JEZ RESTAURANTS: Violates FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws, "Carmona" Says JOE MACHENS: Knowingly Sold Damaged Vehicles, Class Suit Says JOHNSON COUNTY, IN: Sued Over Public Defender System Problems JUST SALAD: "REA" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Wages K&B FINANCIAL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages & Costs KOBE SUSHI: "Zheng" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay & Minimum Wages KYOTO SUSHI: "Chen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages LAS VEGAS SANDS: Adelson Loses Sanctions Bid LIBERATOR MEDICAL: "Sapan" Suit Wants to Enjoin KeyCorp Merger LINN CO: "French" Suit Seeks Payment of Corporate Dividends MEMORIAL HERMANN: Ex-Flight Paramedic Sues Over Unpaid Wages MERCEDES-BENZ: Transmission Fails Prematurely, Suit Claims MERCURY PAYMENT: Champs Sports Suit Seeks Injunction META FINANCIAL: MetaBank Faces Class Suits in N.Y., Cal. & Pa. MIDLAND FUNDING: "Grunwald" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA MILVIDA CORP: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid, OT Wages MMJ EVENTS: NYE Patrons Mull Class Action Over Barbecue Festival MYRON GREEN: "Turner" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Seifert Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violations NISHANT INC: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA NOVA RESTORATION "Drag" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ORACLE CORP: Dodges Class Suit Over No-Poaching Agreements PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Class Suit in Discovery Phase PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeney" Granted in Part PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Broadstone" Case Stayed Until Status Conference PAYPAL: Class Action Settlement Payouts Face Problems PEP BOYS: Faces Class Suits over Bridgestone Merger Deal PEP BOYS: Faces "Edwards" Merger Suit in E.D. Pa. PERRY ELLIS: Settlement Reached in "Ordaz" Case PETROBRAS: N.Y. Judge Allows Shareholder Class Suit to Proceed PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Kentucky's Abortion Class Action to Proceed PREMIERE GLOBAL: Pangea Merger Closed; Class Suit Dropped PRICE MASTER: "Coulibaly" Suit Seeks Payment of Lost Wages, Costs PSSP NY: "Camas" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages, OT RED RIVER: Former Employees Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages RED RIVER: "Carranza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime SACRAMENTO, CA: Judge Allows Citizens to Opt Out of Fire Fee Suit SALE SLASH: FTC Shuts Down Business Over Fake Diet Pill Claims SECRET TO LIFE: Coach Couple Sued Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme SECURITY ONE SOURCE: "Ventura" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages SKV INVESTMENTS: "Montes" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage SOCAL GAS: California AG Files Suit Over Natural Gas Leak SOCAL GAS: Los Angeles DA Files Charges Over Natural Gas Leak SPARK NETWORKS: "Hoffman" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud SUN FUNG: Recalls Japanese Style Anchovy Due to Gluten SYNTHES USA: Recalls SynReam Medullary Reamer Head 13.5mm TECHNICAL CONSUMER: Recalls LED Parabolic Aluminized Reflectors TILLY'S INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Christiansen" Denied TILLY'S INC: "Rebolledo" Parties Reached Settlement TILLY'S INC: To Defend Against "Whitten" Class Suit in Calif. TILLY'S INC: To Defend Against "Ward" Class Suit in Calif. TRI-STATE: Acadia Fights Bauer Policy Coverage Counterclaim TWO WAYS RESTAURANT: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages U.S. COURTS: Overcharges PACER Fees, "Fisher" Suit Claims U.S. WELL SERVICES: Faces "Lackie" Wage-and-Hour Suit UBER TECH: Skimmed Drivers' Tips, "Ortega" Suit Alleges UBER TECH: Drivers Sue in N.Y. over Exclusionary Requirements UBER TECH: Calif. Court Hears Arguments in Drivers' Tips Suit UBER TECH: Taxi Drivers Seek Injunction to Halt Quebec Service UBER TECH: "Berger" Suit in Calif. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages UNCLE T: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Egg and Gluten UNITED CAPITAL: "Carollo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages URANIUM ENERGY: Defending "Stephens" Securities Action VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cold-FX Study Results Not Published VERIZON: Sonoma Agencies Join Statewide Suit for Overcharging VIRTUOSO SOURCING: Collection Practices Illegal, "Sperber" Claims VITAL DRUGS: "Canela" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay VITAL THERAPIES: Faces "Halverstadt" Securities Class Action VIZIO INC: Faces "Jewett" Suit Over TV Tracking Software VIZIO INC: Faces "Pagorek" Suit Over TV Tracking Software VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Recalls Audi A3 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk VTECH ELECTRONICS: "Donnell" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Fire Hazard WALT DISNEY: Hired Cheaper, Foreign Workers, Class Suit Claims WASHINGTON COUNTY, UT: Sued Over Public Defender System Problems WAYFAIR: Gives Bogus "Discounts," Class Suit Says WEB.COM GROUP: Faces Class Suit over August Data Breach WHOLE FOODS: Calif. Judge Tosses PETA Suit with Leave to Amend WORD ALIVE: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard ZILLOW: Court Rejects Disclosure-Only Class Action Settlement * Data Breach Litigation Decisions Show Competing Trends ********* A & A MARKET: "Singh" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Harvinder Singh, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A & A Market Plaza, Inc.; Best Market & Deli, Inc.; Muskan Groceries Inc.; 87th Road Mini Market, Inc.; Muskan Maniani, Inc. d/b/a Hillside Pizza And Grill; Palwinderjit Singh a/k/a Paul Singh, Narinderjit Kaur, Rajinderjit Singh, Parminder Kaur, Kamaljit Kaur a/k/a Kamaljeet Kaur, and Manjinder Kaur, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07396 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover from the Defendants including unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs against Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law A & A Market Plaza is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principal address at Queens, New York. The Company is engaged in interstate commerce that has gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 Facsimile: (718) 762 1342 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Bojorquez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Alma Bojorquez, Jake Vallante, Matthew Allan and C'Endan Claiborne, and all others similarly situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-09651 (C.D. Calif., December 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the laws of Massachusetts, Florida and California by compelling its employees to purchase Abercrombie clothing, resulting in failure to pay the minimum wage, recapture of paid wages, unlawful deductions from wages, and unreimbursed expenditures for employee uniforms. The Defendants own and operate retail stores, throughout the United States and internationally, under the brand names Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, Abercrombie Kids, and Gilly Hicks. Abercrombie is a specialty retailer selling clothing and accessories, primarily to children, teenagers, and young adults. Abercrombie operates approximately 799 retail stores in the United States, including approximately 31 stores in Massachusetts, 70 stores in Florida, and 113 stores in California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq. Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq. Hallie Von Rock, Esq. Carey A. James, Esq. AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150 Oakland, CA 94621 Tel: (510) 562-6800 Fax: (510) 562-6830 AIXTRON SE: Brodsky & Smith Investigating Sec. Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces an investigation of Aixtron SE ("Aixtron" or the "Company") for potential violations of federal securities laws and breaches of the Aixtron Board's fiduciary duties. The investigation concerns a securities class action lawsuit commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements including failing to disclose that: (1) the AIX R6 MOCVD systems that were to be shipped did not meet the customer's specific qualification requirements; (2) that, as such, the Company's agreement to ship the AIX R6 MOCVD was unlikely to be executed; (3) that the impending failure to execute the original agreement would have a substantial negative impact on the Company's prospects; and (4) therefore, the Defendants statements about Aixtron's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading. Consequently, the lawsuit claims that when the true details entered the market shareholders suffered damages. If you purchased shares of Aixtron common stock between September 25, 2014 and December 9, 2015, and wish to discuss the investigation, or if you have any questions, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC before February 15 , 2016, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J. Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by e-mail at investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com, by visiting http://brodsky- smith.com/1031-aixg-aixtron-se.html, or calling toll free 877- LEGAL-90. AIXTRON SE: "Bettis" Suit Seeks Remedies Under Exchange Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Terry Bettis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aixtron Se, Martin Goetzeler, And Bernd Schulte, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00025 (S.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. Aixtron provides deposition equipment to the semiconductor industry. The Company's technology solutions are purportedly used by customers to build advanced components for electronic and optoelectronic applications based on compound, silicon, or organic semiconductor materials. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, New York 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 ALMONTE BEACH: "Huitzil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Huitzil, on behalf for himself, the Plaintiff, v. Almonte Beach Food Corp. d/b/a Key Food, Richard Almonte, and Antony W. Almonte, the Defendants, Case No. cv16-0023 (E.D.N.Y., January4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, unpaid spread of hours premium, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law an Fair Labor Standards Act. Almonte Beach Food is based in Long Beach, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. Shanshan Zheng, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 AMERICAN HOMESECURES: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Cody Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Homesecures, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00001-JLH (E.D. Ark., Western Division January 4, 2016), seeks for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and conducts business throughout the United States, providing home security services in areas including this judicial district. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com AMERICAN PRIME: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Amaury Faustiono Gonzalez, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Prime, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and Margarita Galiana, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-24757-JAL (S.D. Fla., Miami Division, December 29, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for alleged violations of overtime pay and minimum wage pay under the laws of the United States, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. American Prime secure leads from foreign investors located in South America. Employees of the company regularly and recurrently follow up on these leads through interstate electronic communications including telephone, email, and fax. The Defendants regularly transacted business within Miami-Dade County, Florida, including the work performed by the Plaintiff while he was employed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (786) 923 5899 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone: (305) 773 - 6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: "Farrow" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Rieneke E. Farrow on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ammari of Louisiana, Ltd. d/b/a Creole Cuisine Restaurant Concepts, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07148 (E.D. La., December 29, 2015), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against defendants' unlawful actions, compensation for, unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay, unpaid tips, unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Ammari of Louisiana is a Louisiana corporation that does business as Creole Cuisine Restaurant Concepts and owns, manages, and operates at least 9 restaurants locations in New Orleans, Louisiana. It is managed by three officers Marviana Ammari, Zeid Ammari, and Ghaith Ammari. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica M. Vasquez, Esq. VASQUEZ LAW OFFICE 650 Poydras Street, Ste. 1414 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 571 9582 Facsimile: (504) 684 1449 Email: jvasquez@vasquezlawoffice.com ANZ BANK: Court to Hear Final Appeal in Bank Fee Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Clancy Yeates, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a long-running legal battle over bank fees will soon come to a head, with the High Court hearing a final appeal in a multimillion dollar class action against ANZ Bank. In a case being watched closely in banking and legal circles, lawyers representing ANZ customers will appeal against last year's ruling from the full bench of the Federal Court that ANZ Bank's credit card late payment fees were legitimate. At the heart of the debate -- which will determine the fate of class actions against seven other banks -- is whether ANZ imposed unfair penalties when it charged customers up to $35 for being late paying their credit card bill. A 2014 ruling from Justice Michelle Gordon, who is now a High Court judge, found the fees were unfair penalties because they easily exceeded the 50c to $5.50 cost to the bank of a customer paying late. But this was overturned last year when the full bench took into account a much broader range of potential costs to the bank, including the impact on provisioning for bad debts and regulatory capital. Andrew Watson, head of class actions at Maurice Blackburn, the firm representing ANZ customers, said the law firm would argue the Federal Court's reasoning threatened to make the law of unfair penalties an "empty vessel." That is because other corporations would be able to mount similar arguments about their costs to defend high fees, he said. "Our argument is that if you leave the full court's reasoning as it is, you denude the doctrine of penalties of any meaningful content," Mr. Watson said. "You just render it an empty vessel." ANZ Bank has maintained the fees were legal and the costs to the bank of a customer being late were greater than the 50c to $5.50 range accepted by the Federal Court in 2014. The Federal Court Chief Justice James Allsop said in last year's ruling in ANZ's favor that courts should not assume the "role of a price regulator." Legal action against seven other big banks including Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank -- which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars -- hinges on the result of the case. "The truth of it is this is a test case really for all banking customers in Australia who have ever paid a late fee," Mr. Watson said. The action against ANZ, funded by IMF Bentham and attracting 43,500 customers, was launched in 2010. There will be no further avenues for appeals after the High Court's decision, expected later this year. Aside from the impact on banks, the legal principles being debated in the case may also have implications for other late payment fees such as those charged by electricity or telecommunications companies. Mr. Watson argued ANZ's claims about the potential costs to the bank of late payments were similar to scenarios where a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil could cause an earthquake in Japan -- and big companies would use similar logic to defend high fees. "Big corporations will just always be able to come up with some sort of butterfly wings in Brazil causes earthquakes in Japan scenario," he said. ARROW LINEN: "Paige" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages & OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Marquese Paige, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. Arrow Linen Supply Co., Inc., and John Magliocco, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00032 (E.D.N.Y., January 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Arrow Linen Supply is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Salaman, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 825 1400 ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES: Feb. 25 BNL Class Action Court Date Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Counterpunch reports that the class action lawsuit -- begun 20 years old -- that charges Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) with contaminating neighborhoods adjacent to it will be moving ahead again in New York State Supreme Court in February. Court action is scheduled for the last week in February. Since it was first brought in 1996, the lawsuit has gone back and forth between the State Supreme Court and the Appellate Division several times, as BNL has fought it. In July the Appellate Division -- the judicial panel over the Supreme Court in New York State -- ruled the case can move towards trial. It declared that "the causes of action of the proposed intervenors are all based upon common theories of liability." In other words, it stated that the plaintiffs could sue for damages. But, outrageously, the radioactive contamination caused by BNL -- documented in the 2008 book "Welcome to Shirley: A Memoir from an Atomic Town" and focused upon by the award-winning 2012 documentary "The Atomic States of America" -- can no longer be part of the case. The argument of lawyers for BNL lawyers was accepted by the Appellate Division which, as it put it in its July decision, ruled that "the nuclear radiation emitted by BNL did not exceed guidelines promulgated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission." Further, the BNL radioactive pollution will not be allowed to be considered despite the federal government in recent years paying out millions of dollars to BNL employees in compensation for their getting cancer after exposure to radioactivity at BNL. In addition, families of those BNL workers who died from cancer after exposure to radioactivity have been paid. The pay-outs to former workers and their families for cancer from BNL radioactive exposure -- what neighbors of the lab are now being barred from litigating about -- come under the federal government's "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program." Instead, the non-employee victims are now being limited in the class action lawsuit to suing for other BNL pollution, largely chemical. The "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program" covers not only BNL but the string of U.S. national nuclear laboratories including Los Alamos, Livermore, Oak Ridge labs, as well as federal nuclear facilities including its Savannah River Plant and Hanford. According to a Power Point presentation given at BNL in 2012 by the U.S. Department of Labor, some $8.2 billion has been set aside under the program for pay-outs, with $111.7 million of that for exposure to radioactivity and consequent cancer at BNL Joseph B. Frowiss, Sr., based in Rancho Santa Fe, California has been handling many of the cases involving former workers at BNL -- and other government nuclear facilities -- and their families. As he says on his website -- "in the past seven years 1,800 of my clients have received over $300 million and hundreds more are in the pipeline . . . A diagnosis of one of 23 'specified' cancers and typically 250 work days in a specified timeframe are the basic requirements." An "independent claims advocate," Mr. Frowiss has run full-page advertisements in Long Island newspapers: "Brookhaven National Lab Employees With Cancer," they are headed. They note that "BNL employees . . . are likely now eligible for lump sum tax free base awards of $150,000, possibly to $400,000, plus medical benefits." The case against BNL by non-employees who are now not being allowed the compensation of BNL employees and their families for exposure from BNL radioactivity originally specified damages caused by BNL radioactivity. It is titled Ozarczuk v. Associated Universities, Inc. Associated Universities is the entity that managed BNL, at first for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) which set BNL up in 1947 at Camp Upton, a former Army base on Long Island, to do atomic research and develop civilian uses of nuclear technology. The AEC was eliminated in 1974 by Congress for having a conflict of interest with its mission of both regulating and at the same time promoting nuclear technology in the United States. Its regulatory function was given to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and promotional activities to a Department of Energy which took over operating BNL and the other federal nuclear labs and the other nuclear facilities. The defendants in the action -- Associated Universities -- managed BNL from its start until 1998 when it was fired by the DOE because of widespread contamination at BNL and DOE's determination that it was a bad overseer of BNL operations. The two nuclear reactors at BNL were found to have, for many years, been leaking radioactive tritium into the underground water table on which Long Island depends for its potable water supply. Associated Universities -- which continues with other activities for the federal government -- includes Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell and Johns Hopkins Universities, University of Pennsylvania and University of Rochester and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. DOE replaced Associated Universities in running BNL with a partnership of Stony Brook University on Long Island and Battelle Memorial Institute of Ohio. The lawsuit is named for Barbara Osarczuk who lived just outside the BNL boundary in North Shirley and developed breast and thyroid cancer that she attributes to BNL pollution. The lawsuit charges that "actions of the defendant were grossly, recklessly and wantonly negligent and done with an utter disregard for the health, safety, well-being and rights of the plaintiffs." It further accuses BNL of "failure to observe accepted industry standards in the use, storage and disposal of hazardous and toxic substances" and BNL itself of being "improperly located on top of an underground aquifer which supplies drinking water to [a] large number of persons." Initially brought by 21 families, the lawsuit now has 180 families as plaintiffs. The attorneys representing them are led by two prominent lawyers, A. Craig Purcell of Stony Brook, Long Island, a former president of the Suffolk County Bar Association, and Richard J. Lippes of Buffalo who represented Lois Gibbs and the Love Canal Homeowners Association in landmark litigation. That lawsuit took on the massive contamination in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls caused by the Hooker Chemical Company which resulted in widespread health impacts to residents of the area. It led in 1980 to the creation of the federal Superfund program to try clean up high-pollution sites in the United States. Mr. Purcell said that after the many years of back-and-forth court rulings, the plaintiffs have the judicial go-ahead to sue for "loss of enjoyment of life, diminution of property values and the cost of hooking up to public water." Mr. Lippes said that "the lab was supposed to monitor anything escaping from it -- and didn't do it." The attitude of BNL, he said, was that "every dollar spent for safety or on environmental issues was taking away from research." The lawsuit "should have been resolved years ago, but there has been intransigence of lab administrators not wanting to be held responsible." BNL was designated a high-pollution Superfund site in 1989. The large amounts of radioactive tritium -- H30 or radioactive water -- were found to have been leaking from BNL's High Flux Beam Reactor in 1997. That nuclear reactor was closed by the DOE and then a smaller reactor was found to be leaking tritium too and was shut down. There are now no operating nuclear reactors at BNL. Still, BNL remains closely connected to nuclear technology. In 2010, BNL set up a new Department of Nuclear Science and Technology with a multi-million dollar yearly budget. BNL's announcement at the time quoted Gerald Stokes, its associate director for Global and Regional Solutions, as saying: "BNL's long involvement and considerable experience in nuclear energy make it a natural place to create such an organization." On BNL's website currently is a page headed, "Exploring Nuclear Technologies for Our Energy Future" which discusses the department. Long Island environmental educator and activist Peter Maniscalco says: "The Brookhaven scientific culture still doesn't understand the interrelationship between humans and the natural world and the lethal consequences their work in nuclear technology imposes on the population and environment of the world. They still don't understand that nuclear power is a polluting, deadly technology." Attorney Purcell said that a "conference date" for Ozarczuk v. Associated Universities, Inc. is scheduled for February 22 in New York State Supreme Court in Riverhead, Long Island and a "court date" for February 25. AVENUE A CLASSIC: "Sierra" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reyes Sierra, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avenue A Classic Foods Inc., (d/b/a Avenue A Classic Food), Anmar Nahshal, and Omar Alomari, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00014 (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and NYLL. The Defendant is based in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 AVID LIFE: Suit Over Ashley Madison Consolidated in St. Louis ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that the hacking of a website dedicated to arranging romantic infidelity led to angst, embarrassment, accusations and potentially complicated litigation that is all coming here. Lawsuits filed across the country against Avid Life Media LLC, owner of AshleyMadison.com, are being consolidated in U.S. District Court in St. Louis. Two dozen lawyers representing Avid and current or former clients met with District Judge John Ross. More listened in by phone as Ross scheduled a series of motions and told the attorneys he soon will pick leaders among them to streamline handling of the case. One issue will be the continuing privacy of people who signed on to the site, whose slogan is: "Life is short. Have an affair." It has boasted of millions of clients, in 50 countries and every U.S. ZIP code. Ross said lawyers would have to file motions by Feb. 15 to allow plaintiffs to continue using pseudonyms to press their cases. The company can then respond. Lawyers have until March 22 to file a consolidated class action complaint. Robert A. Atkins, one of the lawyers for Avid Life, said that he expects that some of the 50 or so plaintiffs might drop out of the lawsuit if they have to reveal their real names. Roughly 40 filed as John or Jane Doe or some variation. He also raised an issue of the difficulty of properly identifying plaintiffs, wondering whether some of them had used fake names when signing up. And he said a clause in the users' agreement might put the lawsuit on hold while clients' claims are handled in arbitration in a venue of the company's choosing. St. Louis attorney John Driscoll told Ross that plaintiffs' lawyers may need some limited information from the company before they proceed, so they know which clients were covered under what versions of user agreements. He said that the arbitration requirement didn't exist in the beginning, and he disputed whether it could be enforced against anyone. Driscoll represents a woman from Maryland Heights who is among clients complaining that after quitting the service they paid extra to have their personal information removed but it was not done. Last summer, hackers harvested data from the company, then released it online when the company refused to shut down the website. That stolen information included user names, emails, home addresses, messages and partial credit card information. The results included efforts by some to publicly reveal names of Ashley Madison customers and purported blackmail attempts and suicides. The data also exposed some users' workplaces and password choices and inner workings of the hook-up system. Besides complaints of breached personal information, some plaintiffs claim fraud, alleging -- as some analysts have -- that the hacked data showed tens of thousands of the site's profiles of women seeking flings were merely computer-generated "fembots." Those allegedly sent millions of messages to male customers in an attempt to garner more money. The company has denied the claims about fembots, saying in August that the ratio of paying men to women active on the site was 1.2 to 1 in the first six months of 2015. Avid Life, based in Toronto, has offered a reward of 500,000 Canadian dollars for information leading to the hackers, who have not been caught. It has also said that the website's rank have been growing despite the attack. B&F DETASSELING: "Perez-Perez" Suit Seeks Money Damages & Relief ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Perez-Perez, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Benito Vasquez, doing business as B&F Detasseling, the Defendant. Case No. 2:16- cv-14002-JEM (S.D. S. Car., Fort Pierce Division, January 4, 2016), seeks to recover money damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for Defendants' violations of the recordkeeping, wage statement, working arrangement and wage payment provisions of the AWPA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Schell, Esq. MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819 Telephone: (561) 582 3921 Facsimile: (561) 582 4884 E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org BAKER HUGHES: Falsely Classifies Directional Drillers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Baker Hughes falsely classifies directional drillers for gas and oil as independent contractors to stiff them for overtime, a class action claims in Fresno, Calif. Federal Court. BERJAC OF OREGON: Investors Despair Over Ponzi Scheme Recovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Wihtol, writing for The Register-Guard, reports some of the hundreds of investors bilked in Berjac of Oregon's alleged Ponzi scheme have given up hope of recouping much of their losses, as expensive attorney fees eat into the money the Berjac bankruptcy trustee has managed to claw back from culpable entities. The hunt for compensation cash now has narrowed to whether two Oregon banks and a Eugene accounting firm are proved partly liable for Eugene-based Berjac's activities. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court trustee overseeing the liquidation of Berjac's assets has collected about $11 million by selling Berjac- linked real estate and recovering money from Berjac co-owners Michael and Gary Holcomb and other beneficiaries of the alleged rip-off. But from that amount must be paid the trustee's legal and other bills, which total several million dollars. After that, the roughly 375 investors -- many of them from Lane County -- receive payouts. Those investors are owed about $40 million by Berjac, said Thomas Gerber, an attorney who works for the trustee. The two banks -- Eugene-based Pacific Continental Bank and Portland-based Umpqua Bank, and the Eugene-based accountant, Jones & Roth -- are the last remaining big potential sources of compensation. Some investors despair of getting much back. Eugene resident Sally Piernick, 63, in December wrote to the bankruptcy judge complaining about the high trustee attorney fees and her low chances of recouping much of the roughly $171,000 she had with Berjac when it went under. "Many of us . . . mentally let go of ever getting our money back," she wrote. "The loss of (my) money affected my life severely then and continues three-plus years later." In the years leading to its collapse in 2012, Berjac used investors' cash to pay interest to other investors, pay Holcomb family members extra-high interest rates on their investments in Berjac, buy luxury items, and delve into speculative real estate projects that flopped in the Great Recession, bankruptcy records show. Investors had thought they were putting their money into Berjac's insurance-premium financing business. Berjac typically paid investors 4 percent to 5 percent annual interest, often for several years. But investors lost all their principal -- in many cases hundreds of thousands of dollars per person -- when the firm went bankrupt in August 2012. It's Lane County's biggest alleged Ponzi scheme ever. Now, one of the last questions centers on whether Jones & Roth -- for auditing Berjac's books -- and the two banks -- for lending money to and receiving payments from Berjac over many years -- were culpable for helping prop up the scheme. "The next big thing is what will happen with the banks" and the accounting firm, Gerber said. In theory, the three could be found liable for the $30 million or more it would take to repay investors in full, he said. But the trustee's lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Eugene against the banks and Jones & Roth still is in its early stages. The three firms dispute that they bear any blame. They have tried, unsuccessfully, to get the federal case dismissed. They declined to comment to The Register-Guard. Investors are frustrated by the slow and expensive legal process. Springfield attorney Thomas Huntsberger, the trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court, and the attorneys and accountants working for him, have run up large bills trying to retrieve money for investors. That retrieved money is used to pay the legal bills. Portland law firm Bullivant Houser Bailey, hired by Huntsberger to work on the case from 2012 to May 2014, is in a deepening fight over the $1.22 million bill it submitted to the trustee. While Bullivant worked for Huntsberger -- trying to recoup money from Umpqua Bank and others -- it was using Umpqua as its business lender, taking loans from the bank. Bullivant did not tell Huntsberger about this potential conflict of interest until late May 2014, court records show. On May 29, 2014, Huntsberger dropped Bullivant. Huntsberger then had to rapidly assemble a new legal team to pick up Bullivant's work. The new team had just three months to file claims against entities and people potentially liable for Berjac's debts before the Aug. 31, 2014, Bankruptcy Court deadline for those submittals. Bullivant asserts it did quality work for the trustee and that its relationship with Umpqua presented no conflict. However, Bullivant admitted in a letter to Huntsberger that the Bullivant- Umpqua business relationship might make it "appear that our firm was not completely zealous in its evaluation and pursuit of any claims against Umpqua." Portland residents George and Melissa Rex, who lost $450,000 they had invested with Berjac, said in a December letter to the court that Bullivant's conflict of interest and its legal bill are "absolutely outrageous and on the surface appears to be gouging and tantamount to victimizing us creditors yet a second time." Eugene resident David Barjas also is angry about Bullivant's bill. Barjas wrote to the court that his investment with Berjac was $106,266 -- about 60 percent of his net worth. A company that buys high-risk debt recently offered him $4,250 for his bankruptcy claim, the disillusioned Barjas told the court. With the legal costs and Berjac's lack of assets, retired Eugene attorney John Cox, who had $443,000 invested with Berjac when it folded, said that unless Umpqua, Pacific Continental and Jones & Roth are found liable, he'd be surprised if investors get back 15 cents on the dollar of what they are owed. Which entities are liable? In a U.S. District Court complaint filed late last year, Huntsberger seeks $40 million in ordinary damages and $10 million in punitive damages from Umpqua, Pacific Continental and Jones & Roth each. He asserts that under fraud laws his office has a claim to the money Berjac transferred to the banks in the 10 years before Berjac's bankruptcy, because that cash flowed from Berjac's fraudulent venture. The banks and the accounting firm counter the trustee's claims are vague, the trustee lacks the authority to sue, and isn't legally allowed to reach back in time that far and in that way. Huntsberger alleges the two banks and the accounting firm were aware that Berjac ran a Ponzi scheme: taking money from investors, but not using the cash for its publicly stated purpose in Berjac's insurance -- premium financing business. Instead -- unknown to investors -- Berjac used incoming investments to make interest payments to other investors and put money in ill-managed real estate projects, the trustee alleges. Berjac was "insolvent" for many years, and the banks provided loans to prop it up, the trustee asserts. It's the same attack Berjac investors are using in a civil class- action lawsuit they filed in 2013 against the banks and Jones & Roth in Multnomah County Circuit Court. Like the trustee's federal lawsuit, that case is moving slowly. A judge in December dismissed the charges against Jones & Roth, but declined to dismiss the charges against the banks. Claims banks were aware Huntsberger alleges Umpqua provided lines of credit to Berjac from 1992 to 2009. Pacific Continental, and a Eugene bank that it bought -- Century Bank -- were lenders to the Holcomb brothers and Berjac-linked entities since at least 2000, the trustee alleges. Jones & Roth was Berjac's accounting firm from 2002 to 2011, the trustee alleges. Using Umpqua, Pacific Continental and Century emails and other records it obtained, Huntsberger said it's clear bank officials knew Berjac was operating a Ponzi scheme; one Umpqua email even refers to "Ponzi schemes." "Umpqua Bank knew that the primary source of repayment of the lines of credit (to Umpqua) was new investor deposits (to Berjac)," the trustee alleges. In 2008, for example, most of the $5.9 million Berjac paid to Umpqua came from investors who thought the money was going into Berjac's insurance-premium business, the trustee alleges. In 2009, when Berjac finally paid off its line of credit to Umpqua and the bank stopped doing business with Berjac, Umpqua executives were jubilant and shared an email that stated: "With all the Ponzi schemes coming to light these days, we are so lucky they (Berjac) didn't have a run on the money from their investors." A year earlier, in December 2008, New York fraudster Bernie Madoff had been arrested for a decades -- long Ponzi scheme that cost investors an estimated $18 billion. As in the Madoff scheme, Berjac's insurance -- premium financing business allegedly had been a facade for years, with the owners manipulating investor money to maintain the appearance of a legitimate business. In its complaint, the trustee quotes from an Umpqua manager's 2008 email stating: "I don't think that the (Berjac) investors know much about what their money is invested in . . . I'll bet that most of them think it is all or mostly insurance premium financing." "If investors ever figure out that poor quality of the investments (real estate projects), he (Michael Holcomb) will have a run on cash that he probably cannot meet," an Umpqua manager wrote, according to the complaint. In 2009, one Umpqua manager in an email described Berjac as having "an extremely high degree or risk of implosion." Umpqua has not responded in court to these emails. Meanwhile, Century Bank loan officers wrote documents in 2008 and 2009 confirming the Holcombs and Berjac needed loans to cover investor withdrawals because Berjac's money was "tied up" in real estate, the trustee alleged. Bankruptcy records suggest the trustee's office may settle with the banks for less that it is demanding. Another Eugene bank, Summit Bank, between 2009 and 2011 provided loans to and received repayments from Berjac-and-Holcomb-related entities. Huntsberger sued Summit, seeking to recover up to $251,900 in alleged "fraudulent" transfers plus $1 million in punitive damages. Late last year, Summit paid the trustee's office $90,000 to settle the case. Huntsberger said the deal was "in the best interests of creditors" given the cost of litigation. Huntsberger last summer hired retired Eugene federal Judge Michael Hogan -- at a cost to the trustee's office of $550 an hour -- to try to mediate with Umpqua, Pacific Continental and Jones & Roth, plus with Bullivant law over its fees. "Insider" beneficiaries? In Ponzi-type cases, a bankruptcy trustee typically scours accounting, property, banking and other records, hunting for people who financially benefited from fraudulent "insider" or "preferrential" relationships with the scammer. Those beneficiaries might have received special payments or loans before the scam collapsed. Depending on the links between the scammer and the beneficiary, the trustee can try to recoup money going back three months, a year, or even a decade. In the Berjac case, the replacement legal team assembled by Huntsberger had to "take over (Bullivant's) neglected analysis of voluminous fraudulent and preferrential transfers (and) . . . identified over 1,000 neglected potential fraudulent and preferrential transfers to approximately 125 targets," wrote Rebecca Kamitsuka, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department office that monitors conduct in bankruptcy cases. "The new counsel filed 11 fraudulent transfer actions and filed preferrential transfer actions against approximately 59 named defendants" before the Aug. 31, 2014, claims deadline, Kamitsuka wrote. She made her comments in an objection last fall to the trustee paying Bullivant anything. Unavoidable but "ugly" Michael and Gary Holcomb were forced into personal bankruptcies in 2013, so much of Huntsberger's work has centered on trying to acquire and sell real estate connected to Berjac. The trustee has taken ownership of and sold several pieces of real estate held by non-Berjac entities that had borrowed money from Berjac but had not repaid it. The biggest, a tract of residential land in McMinville, has just sold and will yield about $5.7 million for the trustee's account, said Gerber, the trustee's attorney. The trustee's office also recovered about $750,000 from dozens of investors to whom Berjac had made interest or other payments in the 90 days before it filed for bankrupcty in 2012, Gerber said. Federal bankruptcy code requires the investors to pay back the money they received, regardless of whether they had culpability in the scam. Gerber described this as a legally unavoidable but "ugly" process that risks compounding the hurt of investors who are already victims. However, those investors still can receive later payouts from the trustee. In some cases, the trustee sought to claw back money Berjac had paid over several years, typically for real estate -- such as the McMinville property -- or other ventures. The trustee's office filed a legal action against Eugene-based Curtis Restaurant Equipment and family members Michael and Frances Curtis, alleging they received "preferrential" and "insider" payments from Berjac for 10 years. The company and the family settled, handing the trustee $428,000 and dropping claims that Berjac owed them $1.8 million. Attorneys said the bankruptcy process has most likely uncovered just about all the Berjac or Holcomb assets to which investors have a claim. "We are keeping our eyes open and will continue to do so," said Gerber. Retired Eugene lawyer Doug DuPriest, who lost about $100,000 invested with Berjac, said he appreciates Huntsberger's work. A forensic accountant hired by Huntsberger "found more assets than were apparent on the surface of the case," he said. Retired attorney Cox said the trustee's mounting legal tab is not surprising given the complexity and poor documentation of the loans Berjac had made to real estate entities. Legal fees still rising The dispute over the Bullivant legal fees threatens to grow. Huntsberger already has paid Bullivant nearly $600,000 of the $1.22 million the firm billed, leaving more than $600,000 owing. Bullivant and Huntsberger have agreed to a proposal that would pay Bullivant another $328,000, and Bullivant would drop the rest of its claim. But investors and the Justice Department's Kamitsuka are urging the bankruptcy judge to reject the deal and direct Bullivant to give back everything it has been paid thus far. Because Umpqua was identified in 2012 by the trustee as a potential target, Bullivant would never have been hired, had it revealed its relationship with the bank, Kamitsuka wrote. The judge has given the sides the next few months to build their cases. Other legal fees continue to rise. Gerber said the trustee's office does not have a complete up-to-date tally. For September 2014 to August 2015, the Portland law firm Tarlow, Naito & Summers -- hired by Huntsberger to replace Bullivant -- has billed the trustee's office $950,000 in legal fees. The firm's costliest attorney, Gerber, bills at $405 an hour. A separate law firm handling the trustee's federal lawsuit against the banks has billed the trustee $141,000 so far. Its top-paid lawyers charge $400 an hour. The law firm also would get part of any settlement. For his work as trustee, Huntsberger's fees and expenses from the start of the case through April 2015 totalled nearly $230,000, court records indicate. Forensic accountants, real estate sales commissions, auction fees and other costs have consumed tens of thousands of dollars from trustee coffers. BESTCARE INC: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Dinora Romero, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BestCare, Inc., BestCare Management, Inc., and Lawrence Wiener, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07397- ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages that Defendants owe her pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law Article. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from July 2012 to March 2014 at Queen of the Rosary Motherhouse Complex located at Amityville, New York. The Defendants are engaged in the home health care business with its principal place of business located at Levittown, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil M. Frank, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, PC 500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756 0400 Facsimile: (631) 756 0547 E-mail: Nfrank@laborlaws.com BLACKHAWK SPECIALTY: "Marcel" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Kipp Marcel and Wallace Trahan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Blackhawk Specialty Tools, LLC, Trinity Tool Rentals, L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00058 (E.D. La., January 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Blackhawk Specialty Tools is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Texas and headquartered in Houma, Louisiana. Trinity Tool Rental is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Louisiana and headquartered in Gray, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Landry III, Esq. Robert B. Landry III, PLC 5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 Office Direct: (225) 349-7464 Facsimile: (225) 349-7466 E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com - and - James L. Arruebarrena, Esq. JAMES L. ARRUEBARRENA, LLC 1010 Common Street, Suite 3000 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone (504) 525 2520 Facsimile (504) 581 7083 E-mail: jim@unfairtermination.com - and - Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES LLP 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces "Soueidan" Suit Over Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Majed Soueidan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Breeze-Eastern Corporation, Brad Pedersen, Robert J. Kelly, Nelson Obus, William M. Shockley, And Serge Dupuis, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00015-ER (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the defendants from completing the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement until certain supplemental disclosures are made by the Company and attorneys' and experts' fees. Breeze-Eastern Corporation is an American manufacturing company which was set up in 1926 and is now based in Whippany, New Jersey. Breeze-Eastern is the world's only dedicated helicopter hoist and winch provider and the world's largest cargo hook systems manufacturer. The company focuses on engineered equipment for specialty aerospace/defense applications. It also manufactures weapons handling systems and tie-down equipment for military and civilian agencies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel K. Rosen, Esq. Joel C. Feffer, Esq. Samuel K. Rosen, Esq. HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 935 7400 Facsimile: (212) 753 3630 BUILDING UNLIMITED: "Baca" Suit Seeks OT Pay & Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Gerardo Baca and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Building Unlimited, Inc. and Miguel A. Garcia, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-24762-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 1, 2016), seeks to recover paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly as a result of Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a roofer repairing and installing roofs as part of a crew of approximately 4-5 employees. Building Unlimited is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM C.N.A. TRADING: "Zhu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Yong Zhu, Guang Li Wang, Jian Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. C.N.A. Trading Corp. d/b/a, Ou Jiang Supermarket, Ou Jiang City Supermarket Inc. d/b/a, Ou Jiang Supermarket, Xiu Ou Xia, Xu Dong Qu, "A King" Xia, John Doe and Jane Doe No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00029 (E.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and Wage Theft Prevention Act, and FLSA. C.N.A. Trading owns and operates a supermarket in Queens located at Flushing, New York. The company has gross sales in excess of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per year. Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, New York 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Sued for Minimum Wage Violation ---------------------------------------------------- John Monk, writing for The State, reports that a federal civil lawsuit brought by two Columbia waitresses alleging minimum wage violations by the company that owns the popular California Dreaming restaurant just off the University of South Carolina campus has been given the provisional go-ahead to proceed as a class action. An arbitrator who examined the allegations in the lawsuit has determined that the allegations have enough merit to allow more than 1,000 current and former workers at three California Dreaming restaurants in South Carolina to be contacted as potential plaintiffs with claims. The lawsuit still has to be given final approval. "Notices went out to approximately 1,300 current and former employees," said Columbia attorney Todd Ellis, one of three lawyers representing California Dreaming waitresses Brittany Bradley, a past employee, and Tamia Corbitt, a current employee. Neither CentraArchy Restaurant Management Co., which owns California Dreaming, nor its lawyers responded to requests for comment. Ellis has fought this battle before. In a similar lawsuit against the South Carolina restaurant company Carolina Ale House Co., the same plaintiffs' lawyers in 2015 settled a claim resulting in a judgment worth some $3 million for past, current and future workers, according to federal court records. In an answer to the California Dreaming lawsuit, CentraArchy denied all the allegations and said its "method of compensation was lawful," that it had paid the plaintiffs all money due them and that the plaintiffs knew about the company's payment system in advance of being hired. Potential plaintiffs in the case are all tipped employees -- servers, food runners, hosts and hostesses, and kitchen-based service bartenders -- employed at California Dreaming restaurants in Columbia, Charleston and Greenville in the past three years. Plaintiffs must have made less than $7.25 an hour to be included. CentraArchy has about 20 properties in several states, including, in South Carolina, California Dreaming restaurants in North Myrtle Beach and Surfside. Only the Columbia, Charleston and Greenville sites are involved in the lawsuit. Basically, the lawsuit alleges that California Dreaming management required workers who got tips to participate in an "invalid tip pool" and share tips with kitchen bartenders who have no customer interaction and, as part of the workers' employment, they are paid less than minimum wage "in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act." California Dreaming only paid its tipped employees $2.13 an hour, plus tips, the lawsuit alleges. According to the lawsuit, it is a violation of federal law to pay tipped employees $2.13 an hour and then force them to share tips with co-workers who do not customarily receive tips. "Defendant did not permit plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to retain all tips they received," the lawsuit said. According to the order granting provisional class action status, if the plaintiffs win, they will be able to recover unpaid minimum wages and possibly other damages. For example, a server who worked 100 hours and was paid $2.13 per hour for each hour worked might get $5.12 per hour for each of those 100 hours -- $512. The arbitrator in the case could also double the award, according to court records. The arbitrator in the case is Kris Cato, a certified arbitrator and Columbia lawyer specializing in labor law. Cato will oversee trial-like proceedings and make a final decision in the case. There is no jury. Besides Ellis, the plaintffs' lawyers are Jim Griffin and Badge Humphries, all of Columbia. Among the restaurant's attorneys are Molly Cherry of Columbia and Shannon Oliver of Atlanta. According to CentraArchy's website, its mission statement is: "To operate unique restaurants where our people are able to create a dining experience that exceeds our guests' expectations and, in so doing, achieve the highest potential in their food service careers." The website describes the company's restaurants as being "the largest volume units of their kind in their respective markets. We believe this is because we offer outstanding food priced modestly for the quality and competently served. Our facilities are also spectacular with several of our restaurants having won design awards. We go to great lengths to ensure that in each restaurant you will be comfortable and feel special." In Columbia, the popular California Dreaming restaurant is in an old train station with soaring ceilings off South Assembly Street. In Charleston, the restaurant features a wrap-around deck and bar overlooking the Ashley River. CentraArchy Restaurant Management Co. is headquartered in Charleston. The privately held family business does not release financial information. CANADA: Ontario Court Set to Hear Arguments in G20 Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Ontario's top court will hear arguments on Jan. 25 about whether two lawsuits arising out of the mass detentions during the tumultuous G20 summit in 2010 should go ahead as class actions. Police authorities in Toronto want the Court of Appeal to quash the proceedings, which have already been subject to two lower court rulings. The courts had originally ruled against certifying a class action, but Divisional Court overturned the ruling on initial appeal and instead split the action in two. In its factum, the police services board argues Divisional Court overstepped its boundaries in expressing concern that the mass arrests could be seen as "one of the hallmarks of a police state" and therefore needed a thorough airing as class actions. The board argues the original judge was correct in deciding the different behavior of various summit protesters precluded their being considered a class. "The Divisional Court translated its expressed concern about overbroad arrests into a common-issues hearing, which does not allow consideration of the individual conduct of those alleging false arrest," the board states in its factum. "Conduct varied such that determining whether grounds existed in respect of one of the class member's arrests could not determine the answer for all." The G20 summit over a weekend in June 2010 -- marred by vandalism from several dozen protesters -- saw more than 1,000 people arrested or detained in what was later described as one of the worst violations of civil liberties in Canadian history. Many were kept in appalling conditions at a makeshift detention centre. Almost all were released without charge within 24 hours. Sherry Good, now lead plaintiff in one of the actions, was among scores of people police "kettled" in the torrential rain at a downtown intersection. Divisional Court also ruled that Thomas Taylor should represent those sent to the east-end detention centre. Both want damages for false arrest or imprisonment, and violations of their constitutional rights. They maintain a senior officer gave orders for the indiscriminate roundup of anyone present at various downtown locations -- enough to warrant class certification. "Arrestees included peaceful protesters, bystanders, journalists, legal observers, and Torontonians who were present simply by chance," their factum states. "Without the possibility of a class action in this situation, police can arrest entire crowds and only risk a few lawsuits from a few determined and well-resourced people." Lawyer Eric Gillespie, who represents Mr. Good, said the idea that the individual conduct of each class member needs to be examined is misguided and counter to well-established precedent. "There are so many examples of class actions that are radically dissimilar on their facts but have been certified," Gillespie said. "We say this is about as cut and dried as you will ever get." Co-counsel Murray Klippenstein said the encircling and arrest of large groups of legitimate protesters is illegal, and they should be allowed to sue as a group. Arguing, as the police are doing, that people are free to sue individually makes little sense and is "just not feasible," Mr. Klippenstein said. "It wouldn't help justice or the protection of Canadian freedoms." The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which is intervening in the appeal, also argues class actions are appropriate. In green-lighting the two actions, the Divisional Court stressed the broader issue at stake. "It is important to remember that the police cannot sweep up scores of people just in the hope that one of the persons captured is a person who they believe is engaged in criminal activity," the court said in its ruling. CASEY'S GENERAL: Attorneys Fees Order Expected January ------------------------------------------------------ Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a Court order awarding attorneys fees in the Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation was expected to occur in or about January 2016. The Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel" cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of fuel retailers, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas as part of the multidistrict "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation." A hearing to consider whether the previously-reported settlement involving the Company was fair, reasonable and adequate was conducted on June 9, 2015, and on August 21, 2015, the Court approved the same. The approved settlement includes, but is not limited to, the commitment on the part of the Company to "sticker" certain information on its gasoline pumps and to make a monetary payment (which is not considered to be material in amount) to the plaintiff class. A hearing was held on November 19, 2015, with regard to the attorneys' fee award for plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement will not be considered final until after a Court order is issued awarding those fees, (which is expected to occur in or about January 2016) and all time for appeals have expired. CASEY'S GENERAL: Settlement in FCRA Suit Has Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of all individuals on whom the Company obtained a consumer report for employment purposes during the last 2 years. Plaintiffs allege that the Company has violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") disclosure requirement. The FCRA provides for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss/Substitute a Proper Party. Casey's tentatively resolved the matter at a Court ordered mediation on September 8, 2015, for an amount which is not considered material. The parties filed the Motion for Preliminary Settlement approval in October 2015. The Court granted preliminary approval during a hearing on December 1, 2015, and an order is expected in the near future. Casey's will provide the class member information to the settlement administrator, who will then issue the notice with a 60 days opt out period. The Court is anticipated to issue an order setting a final fairness hearing in approximately 90 days. CENTURY INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Defective AK-47 Rifles ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a St. Louis man is suing the designers of certain AK-47 rifles, alleging the rifles fire even when in the safety position. J. Steven Erickson, individually and for all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit Jan. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Century International Arms, Century Arms, Century Arms of Vermont, and Century International Arms of Vermont, alleging negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, concealment, misrepresentation, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the defendants design, test, manufacture, assemble, market, supply, and distribute certain AK- 47 rifles. The suit says these rifles have a common design defect that allows the rifles to fire when the safety is pulled, placed, or pushed above the safety lock, creating an unreasonably dangerous situation for any person possessing one of the rifles. The lawsuit further alleges the defendants fraudulently concealed and intentionally failed to warn of the defect. Erickson and others in the suit seek more than $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, treble and statutory damages, disgorgement, interests, attorney fees and costs. They are represented by attorney Angelo Marino Jr. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case number 9:16-CV-80095 CHAMBERS STREET: MOU Reached to Resolve Merger Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Chambers Street Properties said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, that Memorandum of Understanding has been reached providing for the settlement of class action lawsuits related to a merger agreement with Gramercy Property Trust, Inc. On July 1, 2015, Chambers Street Properties, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the "Company" or "Chambers"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Gramercy Property Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Gramercy"), and Columbus Merger Sub, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Gramercy is expected to be merged with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving entity of the Merger. Putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger were filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, and the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, by purported stockholders of Gramercy. The actions, which were consolidated under the captions Glenn W. Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-15-004972 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City) and In re Gramercy Property Trust Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 652424/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.) (together, the "Actions"), name as defendants Gramercy, the Gramercy board of directors, Chambers, and Merger Sub. On December 7, 2015, the parties to the Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which provides for the settlement of the Actions. While the defendants in the Actions continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of stockholders of Gramercy, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i) avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in connection with the Actions, (ii) finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the defendants in the Actions and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the courts in New York or Maryland ordering an injunction or damages in connection with the Actions, Chambers and Gramercy have agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to Gramercy's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which a court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Gramercy challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to Gramercy stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Gramercy or its successor. The settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, the Merger becoming effective under Maryland law. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not approved or that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement may be terminated. CHAMPION ROOFING: "Smth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Smth and Elizabeth Hale, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Champion Roofing, Inc. and M. Walter Roofing, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-00066 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, January 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and prejudgment interest as provided by law, pursuant to Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Fair Labor Standards Act. Champion Roofing and M. Walter Roofing are private domestic corporations with their headquarters in Bensenville, Illinois. They advertise on the internet as locally owned, quality roofing companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TERRENCE BUEHLER 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372 2209 - and - Peter Lubin, Esq. Vincent DiTommaso, Esq. DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C. The Oak Brook Terrace Atrium 17W220 22d Street, Suite 200 Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: E. Coli Outbreak Probe Widens as Sales Decline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Candice Choi, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the E. coli outbreak that was linked to Chipotle restaurants may be over, but the burrito chain's indigestion continues. As Chipotle reported continuing sales declines on Feb. 2, the embattled chain also said the scope of a previously disclosed federal criminal investigation has widened beyond a single restaurant in California. The Denver company says sales sank 36 percent at established locations in January. That follows a previously reported drop of 14.6 percent for the October-to-December period, which marked the first quarterly decline since Chipotle went public a decade ago. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. also said it has been served with another subpoena requiring it produce documents related to company-wide food safety dating back to the start of 2013. Previously, it had said it was served a subpoena in relation to a California restaurant, where there was a norovirus outbreak over the summer. Montgomery Moran, co-CEO of Chipotle, said he believed investigators wanted to make sure "everything we did was on the up and up." He also said he thinks that will be the ultimate conclusion at the end of the case. A representative for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, which is conducting the investigation with the Food and Drug Administration, declined to comment. Chipotle has been reeling since an E. coli outbreak linked to its restaurants came to light at the end of October. The outbreak sickened people in 11 states. Then in December, a norovirus outbreak at a Boston location heightened customer fears about the safety of the chain's food. Sales at established locations dropped 30 percent that month. Now, Chipotle is pushing to move past its troubles and win back customers. The company has announced a series of new food safety measures, such as blanching onions before chopping them and stepped up testing of ingredients. And, it noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared the E. coli outbreak to be over. Co-CEO Steve Ellse said on Feb. 2 the company was "pleased to have this behind us." As such, Chipotle executives said they plan to launch the company's biggest marketing effort ever. It will encompass outdoor, print and radio advertising. On Feb. 1, the company also plans to open stores at 3:00 p.m., rather than the usual 11:00 a.m., so workers can participate in a company-wide meeting on food safety. For the period ending Dec. 31, Chipotle opened 79 new restaurants, bringing its total to 2,010 locations. The new locations helped make up for the sales declines at existing locations. Total revenue fell 7 percent to $997.5 million in the period. Analysts expected $1.01 billion, according to FactSet. Profit fell 44 percent to $67.9 million, or $2.17 per share. Analysts expected $1.86 per share. The stock is down more than 30 percent since the end of October. CLASS VALET: "Asalde" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Flor Andrea Rodriguez Asalde, John Conde, Javier Antonio Cabrera Savinovich, Brandon Anthony Gomez, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. First Class Parking Systems LLC a/k/a 1st Class Valet Service, Sebastian Lopez, and Jorge Zuluaga, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20027- MGC (S.D. Fla., January 1, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, double damages, reasonable attorney fees, court costs, interest, and any other relief that the Court finds reasonable under the circumstances, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. First Class Parking Systems is based in North Miami, Florida. It specializes in valet services. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Sued for H-1B Violations ---------------------------------------------- Hugh Morley, writing for North Jersey, reports that from its global headquarters in Teaneck, Cognizant Technology Solutions operates one of the largest outsourcing businesses in the world, providing skilled computer specialists and IT services to help companies cut costs and improve efficiency. To this end, Cognizant has become one of the biggest users of the controversial H-1B program, through which employers can get temporary visas to bring into the U.S. foreign workers with skills that are in short supply in the U.S. The program is strongly backed by Cognizant and tech giants like Microsoft, who argue that the U.S. faces a chronic shortage of skilled computer workers that could be alleviated if more H-1B visas were issued. Critics, however, contend the program is abused by employers who bring in lower-paid foreign workers who take jobs away from Americans. And now Cognizant is facing new allegations it did just that, at Walt Disney World. A lawsuit filed against Cognizant, as well as the Florida resort, claims they violated racketeering laws by bringing in foreign workers on visas to replace as many as 300 local employees, who were then fired. The suit, which echoes allegations contained in an earlier suit against Cognizant, seeks class-action status. It was filed by Dena Moore, an Orlando woman who designed software for Disney World cash registers, who claims that she and 200 to 300 IT workers at the theme park were directed in October 2014 by their employer to train their replacements -- foreign workers brought into the U.S. on H-1B visas. Cognizant "leased or contracted" the foreign workers to work at Disney, the suit claims. It alleges that Walt Disney World managers told Moore and her colleagues that they would be fired on Jan. 30, 2015, and had 90 days to train the H-1B employees. "Employees were told that if they did not stay and train, they would not get a bonus and severance," the suit alleges. It claims that although the fired employees were told there would be job openings elsewhere in the company that they could apply for, "very few [only a couple] employees were rehired after being fired." A second suit, based on the same events, has been filed by another employee against Disney World and a different company, India-based HCL Inc., which, like Cognizant, provides services to companies looking to outsource work. Cognizant said it does not comment on pending litigation, but put out a statement saying it "fully complies with all U.S. regulations regarding H-1B visas. We have a robust internal compliance team that ensures our practices are not merely compliant with existing laws in letter and spirit, but also adhere to best practices." The statement added that "as required by law, we pay our H-1B employees at or above required wage levels, and ensure that their compensation and benefits are competitive to their U.S. counterparts." Walt Disney World did not respond to a request for comment. Moore, 53, said her sudden termination notice, delivered without warning one morning in October 2014, stunned her, and removed her from a job that she had held for a decade. As a senior technical support developer, she was paid $40 an hour and got six weeks vacation. "You were in disbelief and shock. It was family," she recalled. "It was the perfect job. . . . It devastated everybody -- not only the people who were impacted directly but all of those who were left behind." The Disney suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Orlando, is one of two H-1B legal cases pending against Cognizant. A California suit filed in 2011 alleges that Cognizant worked with Molina Healthcare Inc., a California health care provider, to replace 40 local IT workers at Molina with H-1B-holding workers brought in by Cognizant. The suit, which was filed by 19 former employees of Molina and is scheduled to go to trial later this year, alleges that Cognizant paid "various kickbacks and other financial incentives" to Molina's chief information officer to replace "U.S. citizens and green card employees at Molina's with Cognizant's H-1B contractors." The suit also alleges that Cognizant made false statements in the applications for the H-1B workers by claiming that "there were no qualified United States citizens or residents who could perform the job functions sought for the compensation offered" when the outsourcer knew that the incumbent employees could do the job. The Disney suit centers on a section of the agreement signed by some employers when they apply for an H-1B visa for a prospective employee. In it, the company pledges that the hiring of the foreign worker "will not cause the displacement of the U.S. workers in the employer's workforce," and will not affect the recruitment or hiring of U.S. workers, the suit says. Moore alleges that Cognizant and Disney created an "enterprise" to bring in foreign workers that violated these federal requirements. "Cognizant falsely and fraudulently attested that there would be no adverse affect to workers," the suit says. Cognizant has about 220,000 employees in 50 locations worldwide, of which about 70 percent are based in India. When it moved half of its headquarters functions from Teaneck to Texas in 2013, Cognizant said it had 620 employees in Bergen County and 3,700 in New Jersey. Ronil Hira, associate professor of Public Policy at Howard University in Washington, D.C., who has studied the H-1B program extensively and called for its reform, said Cognizant obtained the second-largest number of H-1B visas in 2015 -- 4,293. The company has obtained nearly 30,000 visas since 2005, he said. Although the program is designed to enable employers to bring to the U.S. foreign workers to do skilled jobs for which the local pool of workers is scarce, most employers seeking the visas do not need to prove that they can't find such workers, Hira said. The federal government has designated Cognizant as an "H-1B dependent" company, which has more than 15 percent of its workforce on the visas, and so requires the company to meet extra requirements in its visa applications. These include mounting a recruitment effort to find American workers before bringing a foreign worker with a visa into the U.S., and attesting that in doing so it is not displacing an American worker, Hira said. CONNS INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Conn's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that briefing on the defendant's motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit is fully briefed and pending with the court in Texas. "We and two of our current executive officers are defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated Securities Action")," the Company said. "The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought." "On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the plaintiffs to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling, and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 21, 2015. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2015. The briefing on the defendant's motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending with the Court. "The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of any of this litigation. CORTE CAFE: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Luis Alberto Bello Garza, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Corte Cafe LLC (d/b/a Corte Cafe), Antonino Pecora, and Fabio Peralta, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00009 (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated wages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendant operates a restaurant in New York, New York. Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com COURIER LOGISTICS: "Curry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Curry; Tyrone Harris; Nicholas Mason; and Tyechia Webb; individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Courier Logistics Services, L.L.C. a Florida limited liability company the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00007-NVW (D. Ariz., January 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, overpayment of employment tax compensation, and equal amount of liquidated damages, including interests, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act. Courier Logistics Services is a courier and delivery service that has a contract with Amazon, Inc. The Logistics Services has been engaged by Amazon.com, Inc. to provide one to two hour deliveries to Amazon's "Prime Now" customers based on orders placed via the Amazon "Prime Now" mobile application. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillips Dayes, Esq. Trey Dayes, Esq. Sean Davis, Esq. NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 288 1610 E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com CRYSTAL CLEAR: "Cates" Suit Seeks Recovery of Monetary Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Cates, Brian Stover, And Jason Miller, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated the Plaintiffs, v. Crystal Clear Technologies LLC; Carbine & Associates LLC; Hood Development, LLC; Tollgate Village Association Inc.; Bridgemore Village Owners' Association Inc.; Canterbury Homeowners Association Inc.; and DirecTV, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16- cv-00008 (M.D. Tenn., January 5, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages and injunction against Defendants from preventing other telecommunications providers to serve the neighborhoods pursuant to Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Defendant Crystal Clear is a Tennessee limited liability corporation with its principal place of business at Franklin, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLCC 227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor Nashville, TN 37201-1631 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@BSJFirm.com DANCO METAL: "Green" Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM GREEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Danco Metal Products, Inc., Takoda Group, LLC, Takoda Holdings, LLC, Thomas "L.T. " Slater, Jim Williamson, Tim Davis, And John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV And John Doe V, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00007 (N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, January 4, 2016), seeks minimum wage at regular pay day as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, and unpaid overtime compensation as well as an additional equal amount as liquidated damages under the FLSA and Ohio Law. Danco Metal Products is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Ohio. Takoda Group advertises itself as a limited liability company with a principle place of business at Beachwood, Ohio. Takoda Holdings is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201 Canton, Ohio 44718 Telephone: (330) 470 4428 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com DEPUY INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Wrong Sized Hip Implants ------------------------------------------------------- Deidre Mussen, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that Bernadette Rae has had half a dozen hips -- one for every 10 years of her life. The former yoga instructor had to have her second hip replacement surgery after her DePuy's ASR metal-on-metal hip failed. And now she faces a life of immobility or more surgery after her replacement set, paid for by DePuy parent company Johnson & Johnson, began dislocating within weeks of the operation. Rae, 60, has been forced to sell her house and buy a "granny flat", use a walking stick, and has experienced skin rashes and cramps blamed on metal poisoning, and difficulty sleeping. She can't bend to shave her legs or cut her toenails, so pays a beauty therapist for waxing and pedicures. Her story is echoed by the 20 other New Zealanders taking a groundbreaking legal case against international manufacturers DePuy, a subsidiary of medical giant Johnson & Johnson. The group was given renewed hope after an investigation by the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper revealed thousands of people were given the wrong sized hip implants, and some ASR hips were manufactured incorrectly by DePuy. The news came as about 15 patients with faulty hip implants sought to join the class action by 20 Kiwi claimants against United Kingdom-based surgical manufacturer DePuy International. It was filed in the High Court in Wellington a week before Christmas and the case's first procedural hearing was due to begin in early March. Experts also claim that as the metal hips wear they can deposit toxic ions into the bloodstream. Rae hopes the court case will get her some compensation for her suffering, "I've had a lot of expenses and a lot of limitations. . . . Some are mundane things, some are big things like selling my house and having to walk with a stick. Heartbreaking things. "I feel I'm prematurely living a granny life now." Fellow claimant Joy Palaskas agrees. The 61-year-old, who lives on a farm in Onewhero in Waikato, only discovered she was one of 400 patients who got the recalled ASR hip replacements in New Zealand after she spotted a story about it in a newspaper about five years ago and contacted her doctor. She desperately wants her time in court to tell DePuy and Johnson and Johnson about the horrendous impacts their implant has had on her life. Like Rae, Palaskas also has not sought ACC compensation for her hip, but wants it from DePuy. "I feel like these big companies need to be held accountable for it. I'm not a lab rat. They can't play with people's health just to make money." About 50 Kiwi patients who had ASR implants before the recall had joined a class action against DePuy in the United Kingdom, but their cases were rejected by the court in 2015 because of New Zealand's ACC laws. Meredith Connell lawyer Liesle Theron, a partner at the firm, said if the media claims were correct that the ASR hips were manufactured wrongly, it would help the Kiwi claimants' case. Twenty of those Kiwi claimants had joined together to seek a ruling in a New Zealand court about whether they could seek compensation from DePuy despite our ACC laws. DePuy was served copies of the proceedings at their Leeds head office relating to the legal challenge and the first court hearing into the case would be held in Wellington in early March. She said about 15 people who had had ASR hip implants revised had approached the law firm eager to join the court case, but were yet to be included. "We are encouraging anyone to at least approach us to have a conversation about ASR hips." The Accident Compensation Corporation said it had paid out more than $1 million [$1,036,912] to 67 patients for claims relating to their ASR metal-on-metal hip replacements since 2005 until the end of 2015. The metal-on-metal implants were recalled worldwide in 2010 by DePuy because of a high rate of replacement surgery. Three other types of metal-on-metal implants were also recalled in 2012 because of high failure rates. A DePuy spokeswoman, Mindy Tinsley, said their first priority had always been patient safety. She said: "In relation to the ASR Hip System litigation in New Zealand, the company is reviewing the claims made against it and will be responding in due course." In relation to the Telegraph investigation, she said DePuy identified a proportion of metal-on-metal hip liners were manufactured outside of our specifications. "After a thorough investigation, we determined that these variances would not adversely affect how the liners function nor create a safety issue for patients. However, we did remove the equipment that was causing the variances from the manufacturing line." DEXCEL PHARMA: Fax Ads Violate TCPA, "Marcus" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dexcel Pharma Technologies Ltd. And Dexcel Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-08921-AET-TJB (D.N.J., December 29, 2015), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief as a result of Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for transmitting one or more facsimiles advertising the commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or services, without having obtained prior express invitation or permission to transmit said facsimiles. Dexcel Pharma Technologies is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Israel, having a principal place of business at Or-Akiva, Israel. The company is in the business of manufacturing and selling generic copies of branded pharmaceutical products throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228 6667 E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Dr., No. 415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com DIRECT GENERAL: "Willis" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Krystal Willis, on behalf of herself and all other employees or former employees of Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc., similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-02352-HGD (N.D. Ala., Northeastern Division, December 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Krystal Willis was employed by Direct General as Sales Agent from July 20, 2014 until October 22, 2015. Defendant Direct General, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, was incorporated in 1993 and is a financial services holding company whose principal operating subsidiaries provide non- standard personal automobile insurance, term life insurance, premium finance and other consumer products and services primarily on a direct basis and primarily in the southeastern United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Washington St., Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532 2222 Facsimile: (256) 513 7489 E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com teri@mastandoartrip.com artrip@mastandoartrip.com DRAFTKINGS INC: "Turner" Suit Alleges Kentucky Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Dustin Turner, Crystal Turner, and all others similarly situated v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00154 (W.D. Ky., December 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for operating an illegal sports betting or gambling in violation of the Kentucky Revised Statutes and various criminal laws. DraftKings is a company operating Daily Fantasy Sports websites. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee L. Coleman, Esq. HUGHES & COLEMAN P.O. Box 10120 Bowling Green, KY 42101 Tel: (270) 782-6000 E-mail: lcoleman@hughesandcoleman.com - and - James F. McDonough, III, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vining Slope, Ste. 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (404) 996-0869 Fax: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com DREAM KITCHENS: "Borzym " Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Borzym, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dream Kitchens, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00005 (E.D. Wis., Milwaukee Division, January 1, 2016), seeks damages in the amount of unpaid compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief requiring Dream Kitchens to cease and desist from its violations of the Wisconsin laws, and other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper under Fair Labor Standards Act Dream Kitchen provides designs, builds, and remodeling services. The Company develops kitchen, bathrooms, and rooms. Dream Kitchen is based in Madison, Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Summer Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271 8650 Facsimile: (414) 271 8442 E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com DRILL-CHEM: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Other Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Francisco Garcia, individually, the Plaintiff, v. Drill-Chem, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-01162 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, December 29, 2015), seeks recovery of monetary damages for all overtime worked as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Francisco Garcia worked for Defendant as a Field Employee from February of 2014 through August of 2015. The Defendant is a domestic, for-profit corporation. It is an independent provider of oil and gas well drilling, stimulation, cementing and coiled tubing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com EOS PRODUCTS: Settles "Cronin" Lip Balm Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that celebrity-endorsed lip balm maker EOS Products settled a federal class action in Los Angeles accusing it of selling unsafe products by agreeing to print more information on its labels and address individual claims, EOS said. Lead plaintiff Rachael Cronin sued New York-based EOS on Jan. 12, claiming its lip balms cause blistering, bleeding, skin-cracking and rashes, and that EOS concealed the side effects. "Our products are safe -- and this settlement confirms that," EOS' corporate adviser Teneo Strategy said in a Jan. 28 email. "Our lip balms are hypoallergenic, dermatologist-tested, made with the highest quality ingredients, meet or exceed all safety and quality standards set by our industry, and are validated by rigorous safety testing conducted by independent labs," EOS said Attorney Mark Geragos, who filed the class action, said EOS agreed to provide additional product information on its labels, and he will file a motion to dismiss the complaint. The email from Teneo Strategy included a statement from Mark Geragos, who filed the class action lawsuit. "This is a testament to EOS being responsive to the concerns of their consumers," Geragos said in the email. "EOS has demonstrated through data that their lip balms are hypoallergenic, and has provided a mechanism for individual instances to be resolved. "EOS makes great products and the company is doing the right thing by adding more information about their lip balm products on packaging so that buyers can make informed choices," Geragos said. "I am very pleased that we have been able to so quickly and amicably resolve the matter with EOS lip balm products." EOS, an acronym for "evolution of smooth," uses "celebrity brand endorsers," including Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Hillary Duff, and others, to market its products. None of the celebrities were parties to the complaint. Cronin accused EOS of falsely claiming its lip balm is organic, though it contains several ingredients the FDA considers to be "major allergens," such as sodium hyaluronate, ascorbyl palmitate, tocopherols, and butyrospermum parkii. Because those ingredients were not listed, she said she and others suffered temporary injuries, and sought class certification, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for fraud, concealment, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, consumer law violations and unfair business practices. EXACT VALVE SOLUTIONS: Violates FLSA, "Cruz" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Jose Cruz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Exact Valve Solutions, Inc. and Joshua Moore, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00518 (S.D. Tex., Corpus Christi Division, December 30, 2015), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Exact Valve Solutions is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Nueces County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Brady, Esq. PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Suits over Tank Refill Business -------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp., Ferrellgas, L.P., and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that Ferrellgas will vigorously defend against a consolidated class action lawsuit related by customers of the Company's tank exchange business. Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions. The complaints, filed on behalf of direct and indirect customers of Ferrellgas' tank exchange business. The lawsuits allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one case by a multidistrict litigation panel. Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses to the claims and intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated case. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class action lawsuit. FIRST NIAGARA: "Desmarais" Suit Challenges KeyCorp Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Wallace J. Desmarais, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Niagara Financial Group, Inc., Nathaniel D. Woodson, G. Thomas Bowers, Gary M. Crosby, George M. Philip, Carl A. Florio, Peter B. Robinson, Carlton L. Highsmith, Roxanne J. Coady, Austin A. Adams, And Susan S. Harnett, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01226-UNA (D. Del., December 30, 2015), asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Cleveland, Ohio-based KeyCorp announced back in October the deal to acquire Buffalo-based First Niagara for $4.1 billion. KeyCorp offered $11.40 per share for each First Niagara share. The deal will create the 13th biggest U.S.-based commercial bank, according to a Reuters report. The combination is expected to be completed during the third quarter of 2016, First Niagara said on its Web site. Pursuant to the terms of a Merger Agreement, First Niagara shareholders will receive $2.30 in cash and 0.68 shares of KeyCorp common stock for each share of First Niagara that they own. First Niagara Financial is Delaware Corporation based in Buffalo, New York. 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 - 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, NY10017 Telephone: (212) 983 9330 Facsimile: (212) 983 9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@farugilaw.com jwilson@farquilaw.com FISHS EDDY: Faces New York Class Action Over FACTA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York woman is suing a dishes retailer over claims it prints more than five digits of a card number on receipts. Joan Pasini, individually and for all others similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 15 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Fishs Eddy, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). The suit states Fishs Eddy printed more than the last five digits of a card number on transaction receipts, in violation of FACTA. The suit claims that printing more than the last five digits of a card number makes the cardholder more susceptible to identity theft and credit and debit card fraud. Ms. Pasini and others in the class seek statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the suit. They are represented by attorneys Taylor Asen -- tasen@cuneolaw.com -- and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca in Brooklyn, New York, and by attorney Chant Yedalian of Chant & Co. in Glendale, California. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case number 1:16-CV-00354-PGG FLINT, MI: AG Can't Defend Both Snyder, Individual MDEQ Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Chambers, writing for The Detroit News, reports that Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said his office cannot legally defend both Gov. Rick Snyder and individual employees of the state Department of Environmental Quality in a lawsuit filed over the Flint water crisis. In a brief filed on Jan. 29 in U.S. District Court, Mr. Schuette said, "As the issues surrounding the situation in Flint have unfolded, it has become apparent that there is a potential conflict of interest between the governor and state of Michigan on the one hand, and the individual MDEQ employees on the other." "Given this conflict, counsel have determined it is likely they cannot effectively represent both sets of clients," Mr. Schuette said in the motion. Mr. Schuette is requesting an extension of the filing deadline in the case to allow his office to withdraw as the attorney for individual MDEQ defendants and to allow separate counsel to be found. The court has not ruled on Mr. Schuette's request. Four Flint families filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Nov. 13 against the governor, state officials and Flint, seeking class-action status. In that 30-page civil complaint, the families allege that tens of thousands of residents have experienced and will continue to experience "serious personal injury and property damage" caused by the "defendants' deliberate decision to expose them to the extreme toxicity of water." The federal lawsuit names Snyder; former DEQ director Daniel Wyant, who stepped down amid the controversy; and five staff members at DEQ, including the former chief of the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance, Liane Shekter Smith, who was reassigned in October. The others are a water quality analyst, a district supervisor, a water treatment specialist and an engineer. It also names Flint's former emergency managers, its former mayor as well as its director of Public Works, two city administrators and the city itself. The lawsuit alleges Snyder and the other defendants, "acting under the color of law, deliberately deprived" Flint residents of the rights and guarantees secured by 14th Amendment when they "took safe drinking water from them and replaced it with what they knew to be a highly toxic alternative solely for fiscal purposes." "For more than 18 months, state and local government officials ignored irrefutable evidence that the water pumped from the Flint River exposed the plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to extreme toxicity, causing serious and dire injury and health hazards, and property damage to the Flint water users," the lawsuit says. State and local officials regularly assured the Flint water users that the water supplied from the Flint River was being properly treated, monitored and tested and was safe to consume and use, the lawsuit states. Information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act establishes that many of these assurances were known to be false, the complaint continues. "State and local officials were not properly monitoring or sampling the Flint River water and delayed in notifying the public of serious safety and health risks in a knowing and deliberate effort to conceal the truth from those who were being poisoned," it says. "The deliberately false denials about the safety of the Flint River water was as deadly as it was arrogant." The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated due process of Flint residents by creating a dangerous situation and violated substantive due process and rights to bodily integrity. The families are asking U.S. District Judge John Corbett O'Meara to certify the case as a class action, to issue an order declaring the conduct of the defendants unconstitutional and an order of equitable relief to cover repairs and property damage, to establish a medical monitoring fund and to appoint a monitor to oversee water operation in Flint for a period of time determined by the court. They are also seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. FLOOR AND DECOR: Text Ads Violate TCPA, "Reeder" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Reeder, individually and on behalf of the Class, the Plaintiff, v. Floor And Decor Outlets Of America, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00804-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., Ft. Myers Division, December 29, 2015), seeks injunctive relief and award of compensatory and statutory damages, together with costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and pre-judgment interest, as a result of Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with its marketing and advertising campaigns by placing phone calls and transmitting text message advertisements to cellular telephones. The Defendant is a foreign corporation headquartered in Georgia with its principal place of business located at Smyrna, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER Northeast Professional Center 3900 First Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, FL 33703 Telephone: (727) 327 3328 - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C. 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925 5297 E-mail: phil@bohrerbradv.com scott@bohrerbradv.com - and - Jophn P. Wolff, III, Esq. Christoher K. Jones, Esq. KEOGH, COX ®& WILSON, LTD. 701 Main Street Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Telephone: (225) 383 3796 E-mail: iwolff@keoghcox.com ciones@keoghcox.com FRANK A. REICHL: "East Moline" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of East Moline, and all others similarly situated v. Frank A. Reichl, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, GenTek Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, and John Doe Nos. 1-50, Case No. 2:15-cv-06638 (E.D. Pa., December 15, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages, equitable relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. This is a nationwide direct-purchaser antitrust action arising out of a thirteen-year conspiracy to rig bids, fix prices, and allocate the market for liquid aluminum sulfate, or liquid alum, a common coagulant used in water treatment and paper pulp processing. The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of liquid aluminum sulfate used primarily by municipalities in potable water and wastewater treatment and by pulp and paper manufacturers as part of their manufacturing processes. Liquid aluminum sulfate is also used for algae control in lakes and ponds, to fix dyes to fabrics and textiles, and by poultry houses as a litter amendment for ammonia control. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. Jeffrey J. Corrigan SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market St., Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com jcorrigan@srkw-law.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 545-4600 Fax: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: burt@whafh.com - and - Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC One South Dearborn St., Ste 2122 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (312) 212-4496 E-mail: tbell@whafh.com malmstrom@whafh.com - and - John S. Callas, Esq. McCARTHY CALLAS & FEENEY, PC The Law Centre 329 18th Street Rock Island, IL 61201 Tel: (309) 788-2800 E-mail: jcallas@mcfe-law.com FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Execs Get Sentence in Chemical Spill Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- John Raas, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two years after thousands of gallons of a coal-cleaning agent leaked into the drinking water supply of 300,000 West Virginians, the sentencings of six officials at a chemical distributor will bring to a close criminal cases in the spill. For residents who never met those men, the saga won't ever be forgotten. It began when a licorice odor was noticed along the Elk River in Charleston the morning of Jan. 9, 2014. The smell was pinpointed to a leak of the coal-cleaning agent MCHM at a series of Freedom Industries tanks less than 2 miles upstream from West Virginia American Water's intake. By nightfall, state officials declared a state of emergency, telling residents in a nine-county area served by the water company to avoid using their tap water except for flushing toilets and putting out fires. Residents immediately cleared store shelves of bottled water, and suppliers sent in truckloads of water for residents to use in the coming days. Many restaurants were forced to close or cut back services temporarily. The tap water advisory remained in place for up to 10 days while homes and businesses systematically flushed the chemical from their lines. Before the advisory was lifted, Freedom filed for bankruptcy. The first to be sentenced for negligent discharge of a pollutant are Freedom plant manager Michael Burdette on Jan. 25 and environmental consultant Robert Reynolds on Jan. 27. Each faces up to a year in prison and a minimum $2,500 fine. The company faces up to $900,000 in fines at a hearing on Feb. 4. Sentencings are for ex-Freedom officials William Tis, Charles Herzing, Dennis Farrell and, lastly, Gary Southern. Southern, Freedom's president, faces the harshest penalty: up to three years in prison and $300,000 in fines. "I think every one of them should be sentenced to the maximum," said Rhonda Mullins of Charleston. "They didn't have to live through that." During the tap-water ban, Ms. Mullins said her daughter brought her several gallons of bottled water daily for drinking, and Ms. Mullins took water from a nearby creek and boiled it to wash dishes. Her daughter lives outside the spill zone and took Ms. Mullins' dirty clothes home with her to do laundry. Ms. Mullins said she was fortunate at the time that she wasn't babysitting her young grandson. "I think about all the young mothers that did have little newborns," Ms. Mullins said. "You know that was a mess." For more than a decade, officials had been aware of critical deficiencies at the Freedom site, including a cracked containment wall that let chemicals seep through down a bank into the river, according to an FBI affidavit. But improvements to the wall weren't made. Tis, Herzing and Farrell owned Freedom until December 2013, when they sold it to Pennsylvania-based Chemstream Holdings for $20 million. Southern became president afterward, but he was in charge of Freedom's day-to-day operations for years beforehand. Prosecutors portrayed Southern as a wealthy businessman who cared little about safety. Southern appeared unsympathetic when he told reporters a day after the spill that he had had a "long day" and tried to leave a news conference multiple times outside the tank facility. He also drank a bottle of water in front of TV cameras. Former U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin, who resigned in December to run in May's West Virginia primary for governor as a Democrat, said the spill served as "a wake-up call" to the vulnerability of tap water systems and cast "a spotlight on the issue of our water security here in this nation." "We need to ask ourselves if we're any safer in terms of our water infrastructure than we were in January of 2014," he said. "I think it's something that certainly not only tank owners need to be concerned about, but the folks who provide our lifeblood -- our water." Hundreds of people went to emergency rooms complaining of symptoms that could be spill-related, ranging from nausea to dizziness. M any claimed illnesses even after their water was deemed safe again. Under a Freedom liquidation plan approved by a federal bankruptcy judge in October, more than $2 million will be distributed to residents and businesses affected by the spill. A federal class-action lawsuit is set for trial in July, pitting affected residents and businesses against West Virginia American Water, its parent company and chemical manufacturer Eastman Chemical. In a related proposed settlement, Southern would pay $350,000 and Farrell would pay $50,000. FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Ex-Owner Gets Sentence in Chemical Spill ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that a former owner of Freedom Industries has been sentenced to three years of probation and a $20,000 fine for a 2014 chemical spill that fouled the drinking water supply of 300,000 West Virginians. Media outlets report Charles Herzing was sentenced Feb. 2 in Charleston federal court. He's the second of six former Freedom officials to be sentenced on pollution charges. The spill of thousands of gallons of the coal-cleaning agent MCHM into the Elk River contaminated drinking water for residents in nine counties for up to 10 days. Robert Reynolds, Freedom's former environmental consultant, was sentenced to three years of probation and a $10,000 fine. Former Freedom plant manager Michael Burdette and the company itself were set to have separate sentencings on Feb. 4. Other former company officials will be sentenced later this month. GLOUCESTER TAXI: "Berge" Suit Alleges Wage Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Inge Berge, and all others similarly situated v. Gloucester Taxi & Livery Service, Inc. and Jeffrey L. Young, Case No. 15CV2025C (Mass. Cmmw., December 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violations of Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute and the Wage Act. The Defendants own and operate a fleet of taxi cabs and taxi vans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Bace, Esq. BACE LAW GROUP, LLC P.O. Box 9316 Boston, MA 02114 Tel: (508) 922-8328 E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com - and - John R. Bita III, Esq. 35 India Street, 3rd Fl Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 538-5407 E-mail: jrb@bitalaw.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Interstate Chemical" Suit Seeks Treble Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Interstate Chemical Co., Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC; Gentek, Inc.; Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund; Chemtrade Logistics, Inc.; Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation; Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC; and Geo Specialty Chemicals the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00009-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., January 4, 2016), seeks to recover treble damages, equitable relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act. General Chemical Corporation has its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario. GCC manufactured chemical products, including aluminum sulfate. GenTek is in the business of manufacturing and performance products from GCG's soda ash and calcium chloride industrial chemicals business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com bgreenberg@litedepalma.com GFB ENTERPRISES: Diaz Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- David Diaz, individually, and on behalf Class Representation of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. G.F.B. Enterprises, LLC, a for profit Florida LLC, d/b/a "Bean Automotive Group", the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-20011-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 4, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. G.F.B. Enterprises was founded in 1999 and is based in Miami, Florida. The Company's line of business includes retail sale of new and used automobiles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 665 9211 Facsimile: (305) 328 4842 E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com GOOGLE INC: UC Berkeley Students File Suit Over E-mail Scanning --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Leung, writing for The Daily Californian, report that in March 2014, Google fell under fire for scanning emails in Apps for Education, a collection of online tools and services that include Google Drive and Google Mail. Now, nearly two years later, four UC Berkeley students and alumni filed a lawsuit against Google Inc. on Jan. 27, alleging that UC Berkeley emails were the target of such data mining between 2012 and 2014. In 2014, nine plaintiffs in California accused Google of scanning emails -- or collecting information on users for advertising purposes without permission. Similarly, the four UC Berkeley plaintiffs -- Ryan Corley, William Dormann, Shannon Mehaffey and Teddey Xiao -- involved in the current lawsuit allege they did not agree to have their emails intercepted and read by Google for advertising purposes. The plaintiffs allege Google scanned emails and thus violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a federal statute that protects electronic communications while in transit and in storage. Google has not released any information verifying whether the emails were scanned, although attorney Ray Gallo of Gallo, LLP, who is filing the lawsuit on behalf of UC Berkeley students and alumni, and the plaintiffs believe that a 2014 post by Google acknowledging that Apps for Education emails had been scanned prove it. "The point is that you should be entitled to decide what information you share," mr. Gallo said. "In this particular case, people did not consent to Google having that information." According to Mr. Gallo, claims could be worth $10,000 per person in damages. Google representative William Fitzgerald said in an email that the company does not comment on pending litigations. Previous legal challenges Google previously avoided charges by offering evidence that some Google Apps for Education users had consented and knew that Google was scanning emails. Judge Lucy Koh said in 2014 that it would be impossible to determine which email users consented to Google's privacy policies so cases could not go through as a class action lawsuit, which means one plaintiff could not file the lawsuit on behalf of a large group of people. This meant that small groups could mount a wiretapping challenge to Google's services, said Chris Hoofnagle, campus law professor and faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, in an email. "Of course we use Google on campus but we do not have a reliable answer about how Google is scanning student and faculty email," Mr. Hoofnagle said in an email. On April 30, 2014, the company announced that it had disabled ads scanning in Apps for Education. "This means ads in Apps for Education services are turned off and administrators no longer have the option or ability to turn ads in these services on," said Google for Education Director Bram Bout in the statement. "Google cannot collect or use student data in Apps for Education services for advertising purposes." Mr. Gallo said this meant Google acknowledged in April that it had been scanning Apps for Education users' emails after all. Nationwide, 30 million students, teachers and administrators used the free Google Apps for Education email accounts in 2014. How does Google use email scanning for advertising purposes? Data mining allows Google to develop user profiles to target ads more successfully. While most Gmail users may have authorized scanning by accepting some terms and conditions, Mr. Gallo said, Google Apps for Education users from UC Berkeley and many other schools may not have. According to a statement from the campus, Google cannot scan emails under the contract it has with UC Berkeley. "The agreement that UCB utilizes for our Google Apps for Education Service does not allow for Google's use of our data for any purposes other than to fulfill its obligations to deliver the service to us under our agreement," the statement reads. "UCB does not believe that scanning for the purpose of serving ads anywhere is an allowed use under the agreement." UC Berkeley is not involved in the lawsuits, Mr. Gallo said. The suit he filed alleges that other UC Berkeley Apps for Education users between 2012 and 2014 including faculty and staff would have also had their emails scanned, based on Google's 2014 announcement. According to the U.S. Department of Education, under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, outside parties like school- sanctioned email services must adhere to conditions that govern students' education records. Outside parties can only use information such as that obtained in email data mining for the specific "legitimate educational interests" the disclosure was made, according to a statement from U.S. Department of Education. After the initial lawsuits in 2014, Mr. Hoofnagle explained in a blog post that Google switched to a new technology in 2010 called a Content Onebox that allows the company to intercept emails in transit from other email systems rather than scan those already stored in Google Mail. At UC Berkeley, where students and faculty are privy to everything from confidential data and patient information to valuable research on new technologies, a system that scans emails is even more threatening, Mr. Hoofnagle said in the post. "(The data mining) would allow Google to understand the meaning of all of our communications: the identities of the people with whom we collaborate, the compounds of drugs we are testing, the next big thing we are inventing," Mr. Hoofnagle wrote. "Imagine the creative product of all of Berkeley combined, scanned by a single company's 'free' email system." UC Berkeley senior Ryan Corley and a plaintiff in the current lawsuit against Google, said in an email that the alleged scanning of emails by Google would constitute an "invasion of (his) privacy." The scanning of potentially sensitive information is "creepy," staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation Jeremy Gillula said. The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a complaint December 2015 under the Federal Trade Commission for unfair and deceptive trade practices. The complaint says Google scanned people's emails while leading them to believe otherwise, which Mr. Gillula alleged is false advertising. "A lot of these platforms are emails you have to use to participate in college," Mr. Gillula said. "You're forced to give up any sense of privacy in your communications to turn in your homework." In general, scanning of emails containing confidential health information is an example of data collection that is "potentially very dangerous" and should not be available to Google for targeting users for ads, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project director John Simpson said. Moving forward Mr. Hoofnagle wrote in 2014 that Google would have a hard time defending its claim that users and campuses consented to the interception of their communications. "Those campuses that negotiated a 'no data mining' provision are in the best position to argue that there was no consent, because they specifically rejected such data analysis," Mr. Hoofnagle wrote. "And they are likely to have a claim because the placement of the content one box suggests that data mining is taking place over the entire stream of traffic." As people become more aware of allegations of Google's data mining, Mr. Gallo expects to file more cases on behalf of students from other schools using Apps for Education in addition to UC Berkeley. "I think that people at a minimum should be entitled to not just the opportunity to consent, but a very prominent disclosure," Mr. Gallo said. GOOGLE INC: Court Dismissed Gmail CAPTCHA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco said a woman is not entitled to compensation for time spent entering a single CAPTCHA word to verify her identity when opening a Google email account. U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley sternly dismissed Gabriela Rojas-Lozano's class action, finding no evidence that Rojas-Lozano wouldn't have opened a Gmail account if Google had disclosed that it profits from the second word in its two-word CAPTCHA security feature. CAPTCHA is an acronym for "Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart," and is a user identification tool used to prevent bots from infiltrating websites, search engines and other systems. Rojas-Lozano filed her original lawsuit in Massachusetts in January 2015, and it was transferred to the Northern District in August 2015. In essence, Rojas-Lozano claimed that the second part of Google's two-part CAPTCHA feature, which requires users to transcribe and type into a box a distorted image of words, letters or numbers before entering its site, is also used to transcribe words that a computer cannot read to assist with Google's book digitization service. By not disclosing that, she argued, Google was getting free labor from its users. Corley said Rojas-Lozano's lawyer should have asked her whether she would have completed the reCAPTCHA had she known this. "Such question, of course, should have been asked and answered before this lawsuit was filed and pursued in two states. Regardless, it defies common sense that the answer would be yes. For this reason, too, leave to amend is denied," Corley wrote. In increasingly peeved language, Corley broke down the problems with Rojas-Lozano's complaint. "Plaintiff fails to allege facts that plausibly support an inference of a duty to disclose," she wrote. "First, plaintiff does not allege what representations she encountered when she signed up for Gmail; instead, she merely alleges that as a condition for signing up for Gmail, she had to respond to a reCAPTCHA prompt by typing two words. For this reason alone, her claim fails." She added, "Plaintiff has also not alleged that she suffered any damages as a result of the alleged misrepresentation. At best, she alleges that Google profited from her allegedly uninformed decision to complete the two-word reCAPTCHA. But Google's profit is not plaintiff's damage." Corley also took issue with Rojas-Lozano suing Google over what basically takes a few seconds to do in exchange for free email services. "Google's profit is not the only benefit the court considers in this balancing test-completing the prompt also entitles users to a free Gmail account. Moreover, users' transcriptions increase the utility of other free Google services such as Google Maps or Google Books. Plaintiff has failed to allege how these numerous benefits outweigh the few seconds it takes to transcribe one word," Corley wrote. "As Google suggests, it strains credulity that plaintiff or class members would forego access to a free Gmail account and higher quality Google Books or Google Maps because their brief transcription of a single word might, indirectly or directly, facilitate Google's profit earning." Attorneys Google and Rojas-Lozano did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The case captioned, GABRIELA ROJAS-LOZANO, Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. Case No. 15-cv-03751-JSC (N.D. Cal.). HAIR DIMENSIONS: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Iliana Amparo Garcia, and all others similarly situated v. Hair Dimensions of Miami Corporation, Carlos Velarde and Maxima Jobita Velarde, Case No. 1:15-cv-24606 (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate several salons located in South Florida tri-county area. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Ste 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com HARTFORD GAS: "Aswad" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Premium Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abdulhak Aswad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hartford Gas, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, and Mohammed Olabi, an individual, the Defendants, Case 3:15-cv-01882 (D. Conn., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiff at least minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime premium in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants sometime in 2010. He worked for Defendants at their Hartford Shell gas station, Hartford, Connecticut until approximately May 5, 2015. Defendant HARTFORD GAS is a Connecticut corporation, with a principal office at Hartford, Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. THE JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561-0000) Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Matthew Sorokin THE SOROKIN LAW FIRM, LLC 9 Lewis Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 776 6017 Facsimile: (860) 278 7813 E-mail: mat@sorokinlaw.com HEARTWARE INC: Securities Class Suit Filed ------------------------------------------ Susan Petroni, writing for Patch, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Framingham-based HeartWare. The complaint alleges that officers and directors of HeartWare International, Inc. violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between June 10, 2014 and January 11, 2016, by making materially false and misleading statements about HeartWare's business prospects. Robbins Arroyo LLP said the class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. HeartWare, a medical device company, designs, develops, manufactures, and markets miniaturized implantable heart pumps or ventricular assist devices ("VADs") for the treatment of advanced heart failure. The company currently has one commercial product -- the HeartWare Ventricular Assist System ("HVAD"), which provides patients with additional blood flow in order to manage congestive heart failure. The company was in the process of developing a new device- the MVAD- based on HVAD technology but less than one-half HVAD's size. According to the complaint, HeartWare officials represented that MVAD would revolutionize the VAD market and be the key driver for HeartWare's future growth. The complaint alleges that on June 2, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to HeartWare, identifying several manufacturing and regulatory failures at its Miami Lakes facility in Florida that were connected to reports of death and serious injuries. HENNECOLD STORAGE: "Sutton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Russell R. Sutton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hennecold Storage, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-04486-ODE (N.D. Ga., Atlanta Division, December 29, 2015), asserts pendent state law claims as a result of Defendant's alleged violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Hennecold as a warehouse lead from March 2012 through October 5, 2015. During 2014, Hennecold had an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately stated). The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. Kevin D. Fitzpatrick Jr., Esq. DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS & FITZPATRICK LAW FIRM 3100 Centennial Tower 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979 3150 Facsimile: (404) 979 3170 E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com J. C. PENNEY: Defendants File Answer to Texas Securities Action --------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that Defendants have filed an answer to a consolidated securities class action complaint in Texas. The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The Company said, "The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper." Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12, 2015. Johnson & Marcus Suits Consolidated On August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's securities other than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit, and seeks similar relief. On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Defendants File Answer to Ramirez & Ihle Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that defendants have filed an answer to the class action complaint by Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle in Texas. JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July 8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on November 6, 2015. "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend it," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Opposed Renewed Class Cert. Motion in Illinois Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company has opposed a renewed motion by plaintiffs in an Illinois class for class certification. JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1, 2004 to the present. After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification. The Company has filed a motion to decertify this class. The Illinois court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit on April 14, 2015 and the Company has answered. On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification, which the Company has opposed. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits," the Company said. J&M TANK LINES: "Calvillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Calvillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. J&M Tank Lines, Inc. the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-01165 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, December 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages as a result of Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for J&M as a sand hauler from December 2014 to August 2015. His job duties are typical of a J&M sand hauler Calvillo has worked for J&M in Texas and New Mexico. J&M is a Georgia corporation which does business, and maintains offices, in the state of Texas. The Company is an oil field service company. It provides commodities such as sand, calcium carbonate, lime, flour, and salt. J&M is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama but has locations in Texas and Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. Alecia D. Best, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P 9801 Westheimer Rd, Suite 302 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (713) 223 8855 Facsimile: (713) 623 6399 E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com JEZ RESTAURANTS: Violates FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws, "Carmona" Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Carmona, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs v. Jez Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Taqueria Los Comales 1l, Jose E. Zepeda, Individually, and Everardo Zepeda, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11847 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division. December 30, 2015), seeks redress for Defendants' violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2003 to on or about December 18, 2015, as chef in Cook County, and was paid on a weekly basis. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant Comales have annual gross sales of $500,000.00 or more. The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan J. Best, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski. Suite 200 Chicago, lL 60646 Telephone: (312) 445 9662 E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com JOE MACHENS: Knowingly Sold Damaged Vehicles, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Stice, writing for Columbia Daily Tribune, reports that a motion hearing has been set in a class-action lawsuit against Joe Machens Automotive Inc. alleging the car dealer knowingly sold vehicles with repaired hail damage to customers without first informing them. The lawsuit, filed in November on behalf of five plaintiffs, lists Joe Machens Nissan Inc., Joe Machens Automotive Group Inc. and GRD Auto Sales Inc. as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that Joe Machens sold cars that had been damaged by hail to customers who had not been informed of the repairs. The lawsuit defines its class as anyone who bought a car with undisclosed hail damage from Joe Machens dealerships within the past five years. The lawsuit claims the dealerships sold cars labeled as "factory- fresh" and "brand new" even if they had suffered hail damage. The lawsuit also alleges that the company must have known about the damage the cars sustained because it filed insurance claims for the damage. The defendants in the lawsuit on Jan. 21 filed a motion to put the proceedings on hold in favor of arbitration. The lawsuit was filed in November, after the Arkansas-based McLarty Automotive Group finalized its purchase of all but two Joe Machens dealerships from the Drewing family. McLarty Automotive Group debuted in Columbia almost a year ago when it purchased Frank Fletcher Honda, which it renamed Columbia Honda. That dealership now falls under the same ownership umbrella as the other Machens dealerships. The Drewing family retained ownership of their BMW and Mercedes-Benz dealerships, which it renamed Columbia BMW and Columbia Mercedes. JOHNSON COUNTY, IN: Sued Over Public Defender System Problems ------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Goeller, writing for Daily Journal, reports that months after a lawsuit was filed against Johnson County judges, commissioners and attorneys regarding the public defender system, other counties could face a similar complaint. Last year, a group of attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of six people who had been arrested and were being represented by public defenders. The lawsuit claimed they were not receiving proper representation because their public defenders had caseloads that were too large, and the public defenders aren't able to challenge the judges overseeing their cases, since the judges are also their bosses under contracts they have with the county courts. They also filed a separate petition with the Indiana Supreme Court, asking the justices to declare that the way Johnson County offers public defender services is unconstitutional. Since then, a similar lawsuit has been filed in Fort Wayne by a separate group of attorneys. The attorneys who filed the local case said they are also considering lawsuits in other communities, and that they have been contacted by other counties who want to know what changes they could make to avoid being sued. For now, the lawsuit against Johnson County officials is waiting to be assigned to a judge in Shelby County, after it was transferred from Marion County, said Michael Sutherlin, one of the attorneys who filed the local lawsuit. A judge has been picked, but has not yet agreed to take the case, he said. That judge would also decide if the lawsuit would get class action status, he said. The attorneys are also considering filing lawsuits in at least six other counties, Mr. Sutherlin said. Across the state, several counties follow a similar format to Johnson County, meaning residents accused of crimes who are being represented by a public defender likely face similar issues, said Jonathan Little, an attorney who filed the lawsuit. Some of those counties have contacted Little or one of the other attorneys involved in the civil lawsuit to see how they can avoid being sued, showing that some communities are being proactive, he said. Under the civil lawsuit, the attorneys say offenders are not receiving proper representation because public defenders have too many cases to be able to do their own investigation, discovery or depositions in the case. Offenders reported they were not hearing back from their attorneys, and that they felt pressured by their public defender into a plea agreement to resolve their case. They want a different setup, where public defenders are contracted by an entity other than the courts. The lawsuit has had little impact on criminal cases in Johnson County, Prosecutor Brad Cooper said. The cases of the offenders involved have had to be assigned to other judges, since the local judges were named in the civil lawsuit, he said. Mr. Cooper said the lawsuit is ludicrous, because local public defenders have decades of experience. And if the system was changed, suspects could end up with public defenders who are trying to gain experience, since attorneys who have a private practice likely would not be interested in giving that up, he said. But he would like to see the county have more money for both public defenders and deputy prosecutors, he said. Until the lawsuit is resolved, Little said he believes people will go to prison when they shouldn't, he said. "We do these kind of cases because at some point it becomes so obnoxious it's just a miscarriage of justice," Little said. JUST SALAD: "REA" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Jose Alvino Rea Rea, Pedro Altamirano, and Luis Enrique Rivera Lorenzo on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Just Salad 600 Third LLC d/b/a Just Salad Murray Hill; Just Salad Gp LLC d/b/a Just Salad Fashion District; Just Salad 134 37th St. LLC; d/b/a Just Salad Fashion District; Just Salad Partners LLC d/b/a Just Salad Financial District; Just Salad 315 Pas LLC d/b/a Just Salad 315 Park Ave South; Just Salad 320 Park Ave LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park Avenue; Just Salad 30 Rock LLC d/b/a Just Salad 30 Rock; Just Salad 706 6th Ave LLC d/b/a Just Salad Chelsea; Just Salad Wwp LLC d/b/a Just Salad World Wide Plaza; Just Salad 663 Lex LLC d/b/a Just Salad Lexington; Just Salad Park Slope LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park Slope; Just Salad 8th St LLC d/b/a Just Salad 8th Street; Just Salad 1471 3rd Ave LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper East Side; Just Salad 1st Avenue LLC d/b/a Just Salad 1st Avenue And 70th; Just Salad Hudson Square LLC d/b/a Just Salad Hudson Square; Just Salad State Street LLC d/b/a Just Salad Downtown Brooklyn; Just Salad Herald Square LLC d/b/a Just Salad Macy's Herald Square; Just Salad 90 Broad Street LLC d/b/a Just Salad 90 Broad Street; Just Salad 2056 Broadway LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper West Side; Just Salad 140 8th Ave LLC d/b/a Just Salad 140 8th Avenue; Just Salad 233 Broadway LLC d/b/a Just Salad 233 Broadway; Just Salad Woodbury LLC d/b/a Just Salad Woodbury; Nick Kenner, Rob Crespi, and Laura Pensiero, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-10183 (S.D.N.Y., (Foley Square) December 31, 2015), seeks to recover damages for unpaid compensation, liquidated damages as provided by the FLSA, attorneys' fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Just Salad operates restaurants in New York and Hong Kong. It offers soups, yogurt, snacks, salads and wraps, and sips, as well as catering services. The company was founded in 2006 and is based in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 Facsimile: (718) 762 1342 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com K&B FINANCIAL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages & Costs ------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. K&B Financial, Inc., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00052 (N.D. Ill., January4, 2016), seeks payment of statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. K&B Financial is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its headquarters located at Darien, Illinois. The Company is an independent authorized senior general agency for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. McCallister, Esq. MCCALLISTER LAW GROUP, LLC 120 North LaSalle St., 2800 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 345 0611 E-mail: mem@mccallisterlawgroup.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213 0675 Facsimile: (303) 927 0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, Fl 33131 Telephone: (877) 333 9427 E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com KOBE SUSHI: "Zheng" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay & Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Youchun Zheng, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kobe Sushi Japanese Cuisine 8 Inc. d/b/a Kobe Sushi Japanese Cuisine; Chong Lin You; and Xing Da Chen, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-10125-AKH (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek against Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law. Youchun Zheng was employed by Kobe Sushi Japanese Cuisine, Inc. located at New York, New York from August 1, 2013 to October 15, 2015 as a deliveryman. Kobe Sushi Japanese Cuisine 8 is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principal address at New York, New York. The Company is engaged in interstate commerce that has gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 Facsimile: (718) 762 1342 KYOTO SUSHI: "Chen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Shang Zhong Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc. d/b/a Kyoto Sushi; Asquared Group, Inc. d/b/a Kyoto Sushi; and Andy Lee, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07398 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and/or attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendants' for alleged violations of Federal Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 1, 2012 to October 11, 2015 as a chef/miscellaneous worker. Defendant Kyoto Sushi, Inc. is a domestic business corporation based in Flushing, New York. The business engaged in interstate commerce that has gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 Facsimile: (718) 762 1342 LAS VEGAS SANDS: Adelson Loses Sanctions Bid -------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writng for Courthouse News Services, reported that a shareholder made an honest effort to revise a shareholder class action against Sheldon Adelson and Las Vegas Sands, so he won't be sanctioned despite its dismissal, a federal judge in Las Vegas ruled. U.S. District Judge James C. Mahan on Feb. 4 denied a motion from Sheldon Adelson et al. for sanctions against lead plaintiff W.A. Sokolowski, who in 2014 accused Las Vegas Sands of misstatements and omissions in proxy statements to shareholders and the SEC. The lawsuit included supplemental claims under state law, for breach of fiduciary duty/corporate waste, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty of candor, and breach of duty of loyalty. The court dismissed the original complaint when Sokolowski could not show he owned shares in the Sands during the time the claimed misconduct occurred. He was given leave to amend and provide factual allegations showing his ownership of shares from the time the claimed misconduct occurred to the time he filed the complaint. Sokolowski had been a Sands shareholder since Feb. 9, 2012. He filed an amended complaint on Aug. 29, 2014, in which he dropped claims for conduct occurring before he owned shares, but retained allegations of misconduct from the time he bought shares, and made more particular claims of misconduct after he bought shares. Mahan dismissed the amended complaint on June 19, 2015, saying Sokolowski did not make a required "short and plain statement" demonstrating claims for which he is entitled to relief. His factual information supported only pre-purchase misconduct, and allegations of wrongdoing after he bought shares were conclusory, without sufficient factual allegations of wrongdoing. The Sands said Sokolowski's complaints lacked legal basis and asked for legal fees and costs. But Mahan found that Sokolowski's amended complaint included new allegations of misconduct that occurred after he bought shares, which were not included in the original complaint. Because he did try to establish new factual claims, and clearly stated that his claims apply to the time after he bought shares, Mahan said, Sokolowski complied with the court's order dismissing the original complaint and is not subject to sanctions. Adelson is the principal shareholder and CEO of Las Vegas Sands. Sokolowski also sued his board of directors. The case captioned, W.A. SOKOLOWSKI, individually and on Behalf of LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., Plaintiff(s), v. SHELDON G. ADELSON, et al., Defendant(s). Case No. 2:14-CV-111 JCM (NJK)(D. Nev.) LIBERATOR MEDICAL: "Sapan" Suit Wants to Enjoin KeyCorp Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Anat Sapan and Falko Hoernicke, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Liberator Medical Holdings, Inc., Mark Libratore, Jeannette Corbette, Tyler Wick, Ruben Jose King-Shaw, Jr., Philip Sprinkle, C.R. Bard, Inc., Freedom Mergersub, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02484-APG-CWH (D. Nev., December 29, 2015), seeks to recover damages from injury arising from Defendants' alleged merger agreement on November 19, 2015 on terms which disproportionately benefit the Individual Defendants and to the detriment of Plaintiffs and Liberator's other public shareholders. On November 20, 2015, Liberator Medical Holdings, Inc. (NYSE MKT: LBMH), a national direct-to-consumer provider of quality medical supplies through its subsidiary, Liberator Medical Supply, Inc., announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by C. R. Bard, Inc., for a cash purchase price of $3.35 per fully-diluted share, or approximately $181 million in the aggregate. The purchase price represents a 36% premium over Liberator's average closing price during the 90 trading days ended November 19, 2015. The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2016, subject to approval by Liberator's shareholders, satisfaction of customary closing conditions and receipt of certain regulatory approvals. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breach under Nevada law and common law. Liberator Medical Holdings has maintained a robust rate of growth since its founding, and over the past five years has approximately tripled revenue from about $25 million in fiscal year 2008 to about $75 million in fiscal year 2014. During most of this time, the Company has reinvested substantially all of its cash flow into advertising to drive additional revenue growth. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. 7915 West Sahara Ave., Suite 104 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 330 4505 Facsimile: (702) 825 0141 E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 LINN CO: "French" Suit Seeks Payment of Corporate Dividends ----------------------------------------------------------- G. Dana French, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Clarence J. "Peter" Bennett, the Plaintiff, v. Linn Co, LLC, and Linn Energy, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-at-01031 (E.D. Cal., December 30, 2015), seeks to claim payment to the Estate of corporate dividends that had been declared prior to the death of Mr. Bennett. The Defendants have acquired and developed oil reserves within the Eastern District of California, and pay dividends to shareholders in the Eastern District of California. The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies based in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt F. Vote, Esq. Micaela L. Neal, Esq. WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310 Fresno, CA 93720 Telephone: (559) 233 4800 Facsimile: (559) 233 9330 MEMORIAL HERMANN: Ex-Flight Paramedic Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Gene Johnson, writing for SETexasRecord.com, reports that an ex-flight paramedic for a Houston-based health care system is suing his former employer for allegedly unpaid overtime compensation while working for the company. David Brandt filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 6 against Memorial Hermann Health System in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. While employed as a flight paramedic for Memorial Hermann Health System from November 2010 to November 2015, Mr. Brandt alleges that he and other crew members worked 12-hour shifts and that they were never completely relieved during their designated lunch break times. The suit states this caused their hours to exceed a 40- hour work week, and that they were not paid accordingly, which is a violation of the FLSA. Because of taking no time off, the lawsuit claims, Memorial Hermann Health System is required to pay Mr. Brandt and others for all hours worked -- including his 30-minute lunch break. Mr. Brandt seeks damages for the unpaid wages and overtime compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and attorney's fees. He is represented by Gregg M. Rosenberg of Rosenberg & Sprovach of Houston. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Court Case number 4:16-cv-00033 MERCEDES-BENZ: Transmission Fails Prematurely, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Services reported that Mercedes-Benz's 722.9 7G-Tronic transmission wears out and fails prematurely, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. MERCURY PAYMENT: Champs Sports Suit Seeks Injunction ---------------------------------------------------- Champs Sports Bar & Grill Co. and Fashionadvice.com, LLC, d/b/a Sam Malouf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mercury Payment Systems, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00012-MHC (N.D. Ga., January 4, 2016), seeks return of all monies allegedly obtained by Mercury, with interest, as well as punitive damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Mercury Payment Systems provides payments technology and services for small and medium sized businesses, merchants, and resellers in the United States and Canada. It offers MercuryPay, a payment processing solution that enables merchant accept common payment types and card brands; integrated payments services that enable restaurant and retail store operators, and service providers to accept common transactions directly from devices; and customer service and technical support services. The company is based in Durango, Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq. DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-8900 E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Kyle J. McGee, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 Facsimile: (312) 214-0001 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com kmcgee@gelaw.com - and - Mark DiCello, Esq. Mark Abramowitz, Esq. THE DICELLO LAW FIRM 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, Ohio 44060 Telephone: (440) 953 8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellowlaw.com META FINANCIAL: MetaBank Faces Class Suits in N.Y., Cal. & Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Financial Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, that MetaBank has been named as a defendant, along with other defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in three different federal district courts between October 23, 2015 and November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08372); (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM- CMK); (3) Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15- cv-08573); and (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No. 5:15-cv-05996-JLS). The complaints in each of these actions seek monetary damages for the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or about October 12, 2015. The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or trade/business practices. Due to the recent filing of the complaints, the Company is evaluating the cases and has not yet filed an answer. In addition, the OCC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are examining the events surrounding the allegations with respect to the Company and the other defendants, respectively. The OCC has broad supervisory powers with respect to MetaBank and could seek to initiate supervisory action if it believes such action is warranted. MIDLAND FUNDING: "Grunwald" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------- April Grunwald, and all others similarly situated v. Midland Funding LLC and Messerli & Kramer P.A., Case No. 15-cv-04374 (D. Minn., December 15, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for alleged abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Funding LLC is a buyer of unpaid debt. Midland Funding purchases accounts with an unpaid balance where consumers have gone at least 180 days without making a payment, or paid less than the minimum monthly payment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Chester, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (952) 225-5333 Fax: (800) 635-6425 E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com MILVIDA CORP: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid, OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Fidel Armando Vargas, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff v. Milvida Corp, Gartholding LLC, Pierangelo Zanin, and Robert Webb, the Defendants, Case No. cv16-0022 (E.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gart Holding is a domestic limited liability company organized under laws of New York with a principal place of business and an address in Forest Hills, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. Shanshan Zheng, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 MMJ EVENTS: NYE Patrons Mull Class Action Over Barbecue Festival ---------------------------------------------------------------- News.com.au reports that the Yaks Barbecue Festival Sydney was supposed to be "all about meat, smoke, summer and good times". But hundreds of outraged patrons have taken to social media to accuse organizers MMJ Events Pty Ltd and Mothership Events of failing to deliver on their promise with a major shortage of meat and a remarkable absence of good times in the Sydney Domain on Jan. 30. It's the second time in weeks Mothership Events has come under fire for allegedly mismanaging events, with dozens of revellers making complaints about the $500-a-head "Above The Harbour" New Year's Eve debacle at the Sydney Botanic Gardens. Some of the NYE patrons are in talks with lawyers about a possible class action. Mothership Events, which had to refund $100 a head to furious customers, was involved with the disastrous Sydney Barbecue Festival at the Domain on the weekend. More than 5,000 people paid $35 to join the American-style barbie on Jan. 30, only to face huge queues, no shelter and no food. One of many disgruntled patrons who turned to Facebook to discuss their experiences at the event, wrote: "This was the most disappointing event I have ever experienced. No food, limited alcohol choices. Even the stalls were pathetic." Another wrote: "What a waste of $30. All you got was entry to a plastic covered, muddy, hot corral! Not a sample bag, not a free drink, not even a taste of food being cooked! Nothing! Agree with other comments. Stalls were crap. Went to local pubs and got more entertainment for free! Rubbish event." Customer Kerri Clarke attended the festival with her partner and two friends at $30 per head. She told news.com.au the event was a disaster. "We were quite excited to see the cooking demonstrations as well as eating some of the barbecue food," Ms. Clarke said. "But when we arrived at 12.30pm we noticed straight away there was hardly any shelter despite the sun beating down in the middle of summer, lines incredibly long that weren't even moving, sold out signs everywhere and ordinary beers for $9 a cup. "We looked around for the demonstrations but there wasn't much happening, and there was very little engagement from organisers and no announcements about anything." Ms. Clarke said the group stayed for only one-and-a-half hours after queuing for "chips on a stick" and then going to a local pub for lunch. "I've been to a lot of events before and I've never seen one this badly organized," she said. According to the Daily Telegraph, festival organizer MMJ Events Pty Ltd is refusing to give its enraged customers their money back. "We had weather issues which meant a lot of the food traders were unable to keep up with the capacity," a spokesman said. "We are not issuing refunds because we delivered the event as advertised." The spokesman said it would go ahead with a similar event at Melbourne's Flemington Racecourse. News.com.au contacted Mothership Events for comment but has not yet received a response. That company also made headlines when it was trading as Mothership Music and lost a legal battle against Flo Rida after the rap star failed to show at the 2011 Fat As Butter Festival in Newcastle. Mothership Music was placed in voluntary liquidation, owing almost $200,000 to the Australian Taxation Office, as well as smaller debts to a handful of other unsecured creditors. Liquidator Scott Turner told the Newcastle Herald that the company at the time, of which FAB promoter Brent Lean was director, went into liquidation because of the failure of Flo Rida, aka Tramar Dillard, to perform at the event. Mr. Turner said Mr. Lean and his business partner, Justin Nyker, were shareholders of the company and that its liquidation was linked to the failure of Flo Rida, aka Tramar Dillard, to perform at the 2011 event in Newcastle. MYRON GREEN: "Turner" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Turner, and all others similarly situated v. Myron Green Corporation dba Treat America Food Services, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00482 (E.D. Tex., December 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant provides full-service vending and office coffee programs in Kansas City, Wichita, Indianapolis, Omaha, and Des Moines. It prepares meals and serves various organizations, such as business and industry, education, and the public sector; and offers full service vending services that include snacks, sandwiches and dairy products, refreshing beverages, and salads. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew L. Mintz, Esq. ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC 2603 Augusta, Suite 880 Houston, TX 77057 Tel: (713) 780-7100 Fax: (713) 780-7111 E-mail: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com - and - Joseph Y, Ahmad, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C. 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460 Houston, TX 77010 Tel: (713) 655-1101 E-mail: joeahmad@azalaw.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Seifert Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Seifert Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a Third Base), for itself and for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. National Football League, Inc.; NFL Enterprises LLC; DirecTV, LLC; and DirecTV Holdings LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-09944-FMO-FFM (C.D. Cal., December 29, 2015), seeks to secure monetary, equitable and injunctive relief against Defendants for violating the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. DirecTV Holdings is a Delaware limited liability company and has its principal place of business at El Segundo, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844 9696 Facsimile: (310) 861 0168 E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com alfredo@asstlawyers.com arnold@asstlawyers.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622 1851 Facsimile: (216) 241 8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com bhollowell@karonllc.com NISHANT INC: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Hector Alvarado, Evelyn Alvarado, Barry Brick And Matthew Smith, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated the Plaintiffs, v. Nishant, Inc., individually and d/b/a Super 8 Hotel Of Russellville, Arkansas; and Nimesh "Nick" Patel the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00004-JLH (E.D. Ark., Western Division, January 1, 2016), seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Nishant is an Arkansas for-profit business, conducting business primarily as a hotel lodging facility operating under the business name Super 8 Hotel of Russellville, Arkansas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allison Koile, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com NOVA RESTORATION "Drag" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Pawel Drag and Lezek Kaczmzarczyk, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Nova Restoration of NY Inc., Andrzej Janczyk, and Ireneusz Janczyk, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00026-ENV-JO (E.D.N.Y., January 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees from Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor Law. Established in 1995 and incorporated in New York, Nova Restoration employs a staff of approximately 30. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI PC 225 Broadway, Suite 1020 New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 267 2101 E-mail: www.rwapc.com ORACLE CORP: Dodges Class Suit Over No-Poaching Agreements ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Oracle joined Microsoft on Feb. 2 in successfully dodging an antitrust class action in San Francisco over its agreements not to recruit workers from other tech firms. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed the suit with prejudice on Feb. 2, finding the employees failed to show Oracle entered into any "no-poaching" deals after the four-year statute of limitations clock started ticking in October 2010. Lead plaintiff Greg Garrison sued Oracle in October 2014, three days before lead plaintiff Deserae Ryan sued Microsoft on similar antitrust claims. Just as she ruled in the suit against Microsoft this past November, Koh again rejected theories that criminal investigations, lawsuits against co-conspirators, alleged concealment of deals and renewing of agreements froze the limitations period. "Although plaintiffs allege that Oracle continued to enter into new secret agreements and add companies to the 'no-hire' list 'well into 2012,' plaintiffs fail to identify a single new agreement after 2009," Koh wrote in her 51-page ruling. Koh found a Justice Department probe into Oracle's anticompetitive deals from 2009 to October 2014 did not freeze the limitations period. The judge pointed to Ninth Circuit precedent that holds the limitations period begins tolling when the government files a complaint, not when it opens an investigation. The DOJ never filed a complaint against Oracle. Koh said the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuits against Adobe, Lucasfilm and eBay also failed to stop the clock because none of those complaints mentioned Oracle by name. Claims that Oracle lied about its commitment to obeying antitrust laws in public Securities and Exchange Commission filings and its employee handbook were also found insufficient to allege fraudulent concealment. "The court is not aware of, and plaintiffs do not cite, any case finding that a defendant's statements in routine public filings that the defendant obeys antitrust laws and participates in a competitive market alone suffice to show fraudulent concealment, absent other evidence that the defendant attempted to conceal its alleged antitrust behavior," Koh wrote. She also found the employees lacked specifics to support claims that Oracle's human resources staff misled them about compensation and benefits by hiding the existence of its no-poaching deals. The second amended complaint contained no details as "to whom plaintiffs spoke at Oracle, where these conversations took place, the date or time of the alleged conversations, or the content of the conversations," Koh wrote. Koh dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, finding the employees failed to cure statute of limitations issues in their second amended complaint and that any further amendment would be "futile." Class attorney Bonny Sweeney of Hausfeld and Oracle attorney Daniel Wall of Latham & Watkins, both in San Francisco, did not immediately return phone calls and emails seeking comment on the suit's dismissal Feb. 3. Oracle's media relations team also did not immediately return an email seeking comment Feb. 3. Last September, Koh approved a $415-million settlement and $42 million in attorneys' fees for employees that filed a similar antitrust class action against Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe over their no-poaching agreements. The case captioned, GREG GARRISON, et al., Plaintiffs, V. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK (N.D. Cal.) PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Class Suit in Discovery Phase --------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the case, Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, is in the discovery phase. On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company under California's private attorney general act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeney" Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a California court has certified a class with respect to two of the plaintiff's claims and refused to certify a class with respect to the plaintiff's three remaining claims in the case, Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC. On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply to such opposition was filed on November 4, 2014. The hearing on the plaintiff's motion was held on November 24, 2015. At such hearing, the Court certified a class with respect to two of the plaintiff's claims and refused to certify a class with respect to the plaintiff's three remaining claims. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Broadstone" Case Stayed Until Status Conference ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the case, Shayna Broadstone, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp, and Does 1-100, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC594799, is stayed until the date of the first status conference. On September 16, 2015, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging claims for four violations of California's wage and hour rules and regulations with regard to the Company's "on call" shifts for its retail associates. The complaint seeks class certification, appointment of the plaintiff as a class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The action is stayed until the date of the first status conference. The Company believes that three of the plaintiff's four claims are barred by the relevant statutes of limitation, and that all of the claims are subject to a valid arbitration agreement which prohibits the plaintiff from pursuing her claims on a collective basis. PAYPAL: Class Action Settlement Payouts Face Problems ----------------------------------------------------- Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that PayPal agreed to settle a class action lawsuit involving its practice of account holds, but many sellers may miss out on receiving their share of the $4 million settlement fund, for several reasons. PayPal users receive an enormous amount of spoof emails on a regular basis from fraudsters posing as the payments company. As a result, users are skeptical about the email that PayPal sent out telling them they need to file a claim if they wish to participate. People are discussing the email on niche industry boards, from Rolex watches to guns. Many people believe the email is a spoof and some even are mocking those who ask if it's legitimate, so sure are they that the email is bogus. Compounding the problem: sellers have to enter their name, address, phone number, and the email address associated with their PayPal account on an unknown website -- without knowing for sure who is behind it. The website is registered privately -- that means you can't use the WhoIs database to verify that the URL was set up by the settlement administrator. Also unknown is whether the administrator set up the site securely to protect the information that users must provide in order to submit a claim. A recent case involving an Amazon account takeover shows just how valuable a person's name, address, and email address are -- that information can be used by scammers to commit fraud using social engineering techniques, for example. Another impediment to ensuring sellers get their fair share of the settlement: the very fact that PayPal accountholders have to take action. In other ecommerce-related class action lawsuit settlements, sellers have received funds without having to take any action. In addition, sellers may believe they must know the details of the account holds that had been placed on their accounts in order to file a claim -- while that's not the case, they do have to be certain that such a hold or reserve had been placed on their accounts during the relevant time period. EcommerceBytes Blog reached out to PayPal and to Epiq Systems, the court-appointed administrator of the claims process. PayPal has yet to respond. Here is Epiq Systems's response when EcommerceBytes asked about the security measures in place to safeguard the data being collected; who has access to it; and what will happen to the database after the settlement. "By way of background, Epiq is a leading provider of legal technology solutions and services for law firms, corporations, and trustees worldwide. We are publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ (EPIQ) and our main business lines are electronic discovery, bankruptcy, and settlement administration. "I recommend having a look at our website for information regarding our data security practices and our claims administration services." PEP BOYS: Faces Class Suits over Bridgestone Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------- The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack is facing class action lawsuits filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania related to the Company's merger deal with Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, Pep Boys said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015. The Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 26, 2015, by and among the Company, Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company -- Parent -- and TAJ Acquisition Co., a Pennsylvania corporation -- Purchaser. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and on the terms and subject to the conditions in the Merger Agreement, Purchaser commenced a tender offer on November 16, 2015, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a purchase price of $15.00 per share, net to the holders thereof, in cash, without interest thereon, less any applicable tax withholding. Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, putative shareholder class action/derivative complaints relating to the Offer and the Merger were commenced. On November 10, 2015, purported Company shareholder Stephen Bushansky filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit on behalf of himself and a putative class of public Company shareholders, as well as on behalf of the Company derivatively (the "Bushansky Complaint"), in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. On November 24, 2015, purported shareholder Henry Tindel filed a similar putative class action and derivative lawsuit on behalf of himself and a putative class of public Company shareholders, as well as on behalf of the Company derivatively (the "Tindel Complaint"), in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. In addition, on November 30, 2015, purported shareholders David Katz and John Solak each filed a similar putative class action and derivative lawsuit on behalf of himself and a putative class of public Company shareholders, as well as on behalf of the Company derivatively (the "Katz Complaint" and the "Solak Complaint", respectively, and together with the Bushansky Complaint and the Tindel Complaint, the "State Court Complaints"), in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The State Court Complaints name the Company as a nominal defendant and allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties against the Company's directors (the "Individual Defendants") and claims against Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Parent and Purchaser for aiding and abetting the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with entering into the Merger Agreement and effecting the Transactions. The Tindel Complaint, the Katz Complaint and the Solak Complaint also allege that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by filing a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 that was allegedly materially misleading and incomplete. Despite being titled a Shareholder Class Action Complaint and including several paragraphs of class action allegations, the Solak Complaint only contains claims asserted derivatively and does not allege any claim on behalf of a class of Company shareholders. The State Court Complaints generally seek, among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order (a) enjoining the Defendants from finalizing the Offer and consummating the proposed transaction until the purported breaches of fiduciary duty are remedied, and (b) rescinding the Merger Agreement or any actions taken under the terms of the Merger Agreement or granting rescissory damages. The State Court Complaints further seek costs and reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. PEP BOYS: Faces "Edwards" Merger Suit in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------- The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that purported Company shareholder Jack Edwards filed on November 24, 2015, a shareholder class and derivative action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Edwards Complaint names the Company as a nominal defendant and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties against the Company's directors -- the Individual Defendants -- and claims against Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company -- Parent -- and TAJ Acquisition Co., a Pennsylvania corporation -- Purchaser - - for aiding and abetting the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with entering the Merger Agreement and effecting the Transactions. The Edwards Complaint also alleges claims against the Defendants for violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and against the Individual Defendants for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the filing of the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9. PERRY ELLIS: Settlement Reached in "Ordaz" Case ----------------------------------------------- Perry Ellis International, Inc. has reached a settlement in the lawsuit filed by Humberto Ordaz, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015. "We were a defendant in Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis International, Inc., Case No. BC490485 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2012), involving claims for unpaid wages, missed breaks and related claims, which was originally filed on August 17, 2012 by a former employee in our California administrative offices," the Company said. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages. The lawsuit was pleaded but not certified as a class action. The parties reached a settlement on August 12, 2015. The settlement amount was provided for in the Company's results of operations for fiscal 2015. PETROBRAS: N.Y. Judge Allows Shareholder Class Suit to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a lawsuit against Petrobras for hiding a bribery scheme for years while selling $98 billion in securities can proceed as a class action for thousands of shareholders, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled. More than a dozen lawsuits poured into the Southern District of New York late last year after the Securities and Exchange Commission said it was investigating Brazil's largest corporation over bribery allegations. The consolidated class action led by the Liverpool-based pension fund Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) places the class period between Jan. 20, 2010, to March 19 this year. Shortly before the latest iteration of the lawsuit in March 2015, millions of Brazilians took to the streets to call for the impeachment of their president, Dilma Rousseff, who served as chairwoman of Petrobras between 2003 and 2010. A corruption probe of thousands produced more than 40 indictments. The most recent conviction brought down the company's former director Jorge Zelada on Feb. 1, the BBC reported. On Feb. 2, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff certified the consolidated lawsuit against the company into multiple class actions representing "thousands of class members, dispersed across the globe." The judge appointed North Carolina, Hawaii, and USS as class representatives for claims under the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act, and allowed the Manhattan-based firm Pomerantz to serve as their counsel. Petrobras argued that the hundreds of shareholders who filed "opt- out" individual actions against the company made class certification unfeasible. For Rakoff, this argument ignored important context. "The context of this particular case is that Petrobras was among the world's largest companies during the class period," he wrote in a 49-page ruling. "Hundreds of opt-outs is a large number, but a conservative estimate would place the size of the proposed classes in the thousands. Judicial economy will be served by a joint trial because of the similarities between the individual actions and the present action, but, contrary to defendants' suggestion, this would not extend to a joint trial for thousands upon thousands of individual actions." Lead class counsel Jeremy Lieberman, a partner at Pomerantz, said the firm is "very pleased" with the ruling. "The fraud conducted by Petrobras during the class period has eviscerated billions of dollars in shareholder value as well as hobbled the political and economic structure of Brazil, one of the world's largest economies," he said in an email. "Today's ruling represents a significant milestone in plaintiffs' efforts to recoup a significant portion of the losses incurred by defendants' unprecedented scheme." Petrobras representatives did not immediately respond to email requests for comment. The case captioned, In re: PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION, 14-cv-9662 (JSR)(S.D.N.Y.). PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Kentucky's Abortion Class Action to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Newman, writing for NanoNews, reports that the lawsuit will now continue as a class action, though U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker has not yet applied the injunction to the entire class. Once that happens, it will prevent the state from ending Medicaid coverage of Planned Parenthood services to Medicaid patients in the state. "Our country is at a crisis point for women", one ad says, according to The Hill. "We were under the impression, from what we had been told, that we were operating in accordance with the procedures of the Office of the Inspector General", she said, a claim the Bevin administration is investigating. And then there was that bill to defund Planned Parenthood, the next chapter in an ongoing debate over abortion issues that leaves little room for compromise on either side. A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman responded that the organization "applied for an abortion facility license and commenced services under the guidance of the Office of the Inspector General, the state office that is responsible for licensing health facilities". Planned Parenthood opened a clinic in Louisville and began performing abortions January 21. The high court has agreed to decide whether Texas would violate women's constitutional reproductive rights with a law that would force closure of most of the state's abortion clinics by imposing various medical requirements, such as requiring them to meet hospital standards and requiring their doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. "Ohio Right to Life is on the cusp of de-funding Planned Parenthood thanks to the hard work and compassion of our pro-life leaders", said Stephanie Ranade Krider, executive director of Ohio Right to Life. Kentucky has abortion clinics in Louisville and Lexington, the state's two largest cities. The ads argue that access to abortion and other priorities are at risk if a Republican is elected, but that Clinton has "the strongest record on women's health of anyone, ever". "I think they're part of the solution", Selznick said. A group with the imaginative name of Center for Medical Progress tried to entrap Planned Parenthood officials, posing as representatives of a company looking for fetal tissue to conduct medical research. "I'm excited about it. From what I understand, Kentucky would be the first state to incorporate a Telehealth component into informed consent", Julie Raque Adams said. The bill has no chance of passing in the Democratic-led Assembly, but other states have successfully banned funding to the organization. This morning, the Senate Committee on Government Oversight and Reform approved the legislation, 9-3. Ms. Adams, would require a woman to receive counseling in person rather than by phone as the law now allows. She added: "At the end of the day, she's the one we trust to go head to head with the extreme anti-abortion politicians hell-bent on rolling back the progress we've made for women". "That saddens me", she said. It is surrounded by privacy walls and fencing with a secured entrance. Sen. Max Wise, R-Campbellsville, a sponsor of Senate Bill 7, told CN/2, "there's no doctoring or editing to those at all", referring to the videos, while Sen. "Security, safety, and privacy was of paramount importance", she said. PREMIERE GLOBAL: Pangea Merger Closed; Class Suit Dropped --------------------------------------------------------- Premiere Global Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, that a putative class action lawsuit relating to a merger deal was filed on November 10, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On December 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed with the court a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 10, 2015, by and among Premiere Global Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the "Company"), Pangea Private Holdings II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and Pangea Merger Sub Inc., a Georgia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), on December 8, 2015 (the "Closing Date"), Merger Sub was merged with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Siris Capital Group, LLC ("Siris"). PRICE MASTER: "Coulibaly" Suit Seeks Payment of Lost Wages, Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adama Coulibaly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Price Master Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00027-NGG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., January 4, 2016), seeks lost wages, treble and/or liquidated damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees, and other such legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper under Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Price Master distributes convenience products. The Company offers automotive suppliers, cigarette, tobacco, batteries, consumer electronics, general merchandise, health and beauty aids, household, and novelty products. The Company is based in Woodside, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Alexander Bernstein, Esq. Bernstein, P.C. 175 Varick Street, 1st Fl. New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 308 1515 E-mail: jbernstein@jbernsteinpc.com PSSP NY: "Camas" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages, OT ------------------------------------------------------- Luis Camas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. PSSP NY Inc. d/b/a Sofia's of Little Italy and Nelson Shaked, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00012S (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law. This Little Italy eatery offers traditional fare in a space decked out with murals & wine bottles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC 2747 Cone Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808 2224 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com RED RIVER: Former Employees Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Gene Johnson, writing for SETexasRecord.com, reports that two former employees of a Fort Worth-based oil field services company are suing their employer for overtime time wages that were allegedly not paid out. Tarlton Pittard and Nathan Bernardino filed a class-action lawsuit Dec. 30 against Red River Oilfield Sevices LLC, doing business as Red River Technical Services LLC, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Mr. Pittard, while working for Red River Oilfield as an EMI helper assisting with electromagnetic inspections from September 2014 to Dec. 4, 2014, claims he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and in fact, worked regularly in excess of 80 hours per week -- and paid on an hourly basis. Bernardino, working in the same position from June 2014 to November 2015, alleges that he regularly worked in excess of 80 hours per week, paid on an hourly basis, and was not paid for all of his regular and overtime hours, which forced him to work "off the clock" and to not be paid for all hours worked during most workweeks. Both men claim they are entitled to be paid their regular wages and to be paid an overtime premium for all work performed during the hours worked over 40 each week. Messrs. Pittard and Bernardino seek judgment for an amount equal to their alleged unpaid overtime wages at an applicable rate, costs and attorney's fees. They are represented by attorney Josef F. Buenker of Houston. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Court Case number 4:15-cv-03753 RED RIVER: "Carranza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Harley Carranza, and all others similarly situated v. Red River Oilfield Services, LLC dba Red River Technical Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03631 (S.D. Tex., December 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Red River is a company that provides services to the oil and gas industry, providing, in addition to other services, tubular inspection services and premium hard banding services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: (713) 868-3388 Fax: (713) 683-9940 SACRAMENTO, CA: Judge Allows Citizens to Opt Out of Fire Fee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Petersen, writing for My Mother Lode, reports that a ruling from a Sacramento Superior court judge allows citizens to either join in or opt out of the $150 fire fee lawsuit. However, no determination on whether the fee is a tax, as critics claim, was made. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Legal Secretary Lorice Strem states that this is just one of several legal hoops that need to be jumped, explaining, "The hoop we had to get through was to get the courts approval on how we propose to notify people that they are in our class action. That is important because once we notify people there is a period of time where people can opt out or decide that they don't want to be part of our lawsuit. If we don't do that, we cannot move forward on our lawsuit. Also, nothing was decided on the merits of the case." The fee passed by a simple majority vote of the Legislature in 2011. It charges residential property owners in rural areas $150 for each habitable structure located on their land. Property owners who pay for local fire protection will receive a $35 reduction. Strem says those that want to join the lawsuit must meet these criteria, stating, "People who have filed a petition for redetermination protesting the fire fee and have paid the fire fee, because the court does not allow us to represent people who have not paid and protested." She adds that those that fit that description do not need to do anything to qualify for the lawsuit. As the fire fee bills go out intermittently throughout the year to more than 825,000 property owners, it is not too late to file a protest and join the lawsuit. All is required is that the owner file within 30 days of the billing date, according to Strem. Mother Lode Senator Tom Berryhill has been a vocal opponent of the fire fee. He cheers that the courts finally deliver some good news indicating that this could be the beginning of the end of the fire fee. "I have always thought this was an illegal tax and an atrocious overreach on the part of the state to squeeze additional money out of taxpayers in rural areas," comments Berryhill. SALE SLASH: FTC Shuts Down Business Over Fake Diet Pill Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a Glendale, California, company shut down 10 months ago will pay about $10 million to settle claims by the Federal Trade Commission that it wildly exaggerated the results of its diet supplements, used fake endorsements from people like Oprah Winfrey and hired marketers to send millions of spam emails. FTC Midwest Region attorney Matthew H. Wernz said the $43 million settlement allows $33 million to be suspended if the defendants comply with conditions of the settlement. If they fail to comply, the full amount will be reinstated. A court-appointed attorney liquidated the company, called Sale Slash and Purists Choice, Mr. Wernz said. There was no listing for Sale Slash. A call to Purists Choice went to a recording; a message was not returned. The attorney said two of the corporate defendants fought the settlement in court, but three did not show up so default judgments will be sought against them. The FTC sought to recover money to repay those who bought supplements with names like Premium Green Coffee and Pure Garcinia Cambogia. The FTC alleges the defendants used affiliate marketers to send illegal spam emails and post banner ads so it looked like a news sites where celebrities, including Winfrey and members of syndicated television program "The Doctors," were interviewed by a consumer reporter instead of a paid advertiser. In all cases, the celebrities were interviewed about their dramatic weight loss. The defendants have been selling the supplements since 2012. The original claim was filed and a temporary restraining order issued in federal district court on April 27 of 2015. The receiver took possession of the defendants' property two days later. Mr. Wernz said most of the $10 million will come from real estate and assets frozen in bank accounts. The court spelled out for the corporate defendants what practices they could engage in, prohibited them from making weight-loss claims unless they had competent and reliable evidence, prohibited them from using celebrity endorsements unless they actually had those endorsements, and instructed them on how they could use email. SECRET TO LIFE: Coach Couple Sued Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Spector, writing for NBC News, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed in Colorado is focusing new attention on the "life coaching" industry, a quickly growing but unregulated field that attracts many practitioners who lack any training or certification. Coral Rose Grant and her husband Gary McGonagle "Mac" Grant II, who ran a life coaching business in Windsor, Colorado, called The Secret to Life Coaching, and other affiliated businesses, are accused in the lawsuit of running a Ponzi scheme that brought in "$8 million to $20 million," according to Courthouse News Service, which first reported on the case. Former clients April Fisher and Cheri Lucas, who filed the suit on Jan. 18 in Texas, allege that Coral Grant has been using her companies since 2010 to sign up independent coaches, promising them a commission or fee for each life coaching client or coach they signed up. Instead, the Grants "engaged in a pattern of pocketing investors' money instead of using it for any legitimate business purposes," and also took the commissions and fees owed to the coaches under their contracts, the lawsuit says. Prison Meditation Program Helps Inmates Rebuild Minds, Restart Lives Fisher and Lucas are seeking $30 million from the Grants and business associate, Heather Suzanne Perdue, on behalf of themselves and other coaches and clients. Phone and email messages from NBC News to the Grants and Perdue seeking comment were not returned. Attorneys for Fisher and Lucas also did not return calls seeking comment. While illicit activity can happen in any industry, life coaching is particularly susceptible because it is unregulated and anyone can say they're a life coach establish a practice, experts say. "There is so much snake oil out there in the self-help industry, and people should definitely keep their BS detectors up," Anna Kunnecke, chief commercial officer of Declare Dominion, a life coaching service in Portland, Oregon. It's also big business. A study by the International Coaching Federation (ICF), a nonprofit industry group that offers certification programs for life coaches, estimated that total industry revenue was $1.979 billion in 2012. And according to the Department of Labor statistics analyzed by CareerTrends, there were 202,360 "self-enrichment education teachers" -- a category that includes life coaches -- in the U.S. as of 2014. Unlike a doctor or a counselor, life coaches don't have to back up their titles with a degree. They can also earn some kind of certificate in just a couple of days. "Unfortunately, some certifications can be earned in a weekend," Mary Allen, a life coach in Laguna Niguel, California, told NBC News. "The International Coach Federation certifies coaches at three levels -- ACC, PCC and MCC. These are the credentials to look for." For people interested in hiring or becoming a life coach, a little research also goes a long way, said Samantha Ettus, a work-life- balance practitioner. In addition to being accredited by the ICF, life coaches should have positive testimonials from former clients who should be identifiable to ensure that the endorsements aren't bogus, she said. "Don't rely just on social media or what a friend says," she said, recommending that prospective clients speak directly to those providing endorsements. "There's nothing wrong with asking to speak to a couple former clients, who you should then Google to make sure they are not they're not a next-door neighbor (of the life coach)." Despite such advice, most prospective clients are very trusting when they enter a relationship with a life coach. "In over a decade of private coaching, I have never once been asked for either (credentials or references)," said Nancy Koenig, a singles, dating and relationship coach in Long Beach, New York. "I specialized with addictions for many years and even worked with high-profile clients," Koening said. "I was on private jets with people who put their life or the lives of a loved one in my hands without finding out if I was qualified to help them. Because coaching has become so mainstream, it doesn't occur to people that you don't need training or experience to start a business." Another reason that people may pick a life coach without doing the research is because they are emotionally vulnerable. And when people are feeling lost, they tend to lose sight of the fact that they do have something to lose if they make a bad choice, said Ettus. "A lot of it has to do with recognizing that when you're struggling, it's good to look for help, but be smart about it," she said. "There's a happy medium between being insular with your problems and going outward looking for help blindly. This is as important as making a medical decision." SECURITY ONE SOURCE: "Ventura" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Marvin Ventura and Saul Padilla Rodriguez, the Plaintiffs, v. Security One Source, LLC and Tam Le Cragg, the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-03986-TDC (D. Md., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime hours pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and Maryland Wage and Hour Law. Security One Source is the premier organization for security professionals. SOS is dedicated to increasing the effectiveness and productivity of security services. The Company is based in Silver Spring, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 836 Bonifant Street, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587 9373 Facsimile: (301) 287 9397 E-mail: ggrenberg@zagfirm.com SKV INVESTMENTS: "Montes" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage ------------------------------------------------------------ Guillermo Montes on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Sky Investments, L.L.C. the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00006 (S.D. Tex., Houston Division, January 4, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sky Investments, L.L.C. is a Domestic Limited Liability Company (LLC) in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Williams, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111 Houston, Texas 77079 Telephone: (832) 230 4125 Facsimile: (832) 230 5130 SOCAL GAS: California AG Files Suit Over Natural Gas Leak --------------------------------------------------------- Brian Melley and Ellen Knickmeyer, writing for The Associated Press, report that California's attorney general added her name on Feb. 2 to the long list of parties suing a utility company for the massive nonstop natural gas leak that has driven thousands of Los Angeles residents from their homes and spewed more than 2 million tons of climate-changing methane. Attorney General Kamala Harris said Southern California Gas Co. violated several state laws and failed to report the leak to the necessary agencies for three days after its discovery in October near the Porter Ranch section of Los Angeles. The leak that has been out of control nearly 15 weeks has created a public health and statewide environmental emergency, Harris said. "The impact of this unprecedented gas leak is devastating to families in our state, our environment, and our efforts to combat global warming," Ms. Harris said in a statement. "Southern California Gas Company must be held accountable." A company spokeswoman said it doesn't comment on pending litigation and was focused on stopping the leak, which it expects to plug by the end of the month. SoCalGas is facing more than two dozen lawsuits -- including potential class-actions from residents and businesses over the leak as well as from regional air regulators and city and county authorities. Ms. Harris, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate, is the first state official to sue, though her suit incorporates elements of lawsuits filed by the city and county of Los Angeles. Several state agencies are investigating the blowout and have issued orders to the gas company to stop it and turn over records of the 60-year-old well and others from the field that is the largest natural gas storage facility in the West. The company said the leak was detected Oct. 23, though residents weren't immediately notified and those who complained to the company about the nauseating smell were initially told it was part of routine maintenance. The company didn't report the leak to the appropriate agency or the Office of Emergency Services until Oct. 26, Ms. Harris said in the suit that claims the company created a nuisance and violated health and safety codes and the state's unfair competition law. The suit seeks unspecified damages. Residents have reported symptoms including headaches, nosebleeds and rashes, among other woes. Public health officials have blamed the maladies on odorant added to make the gas detectable. They have said the leak -- mostly methane but including trace elements of the carcinogen benzene -- is not expected to cause long-term health problems. California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, introduced a legislative amendment on Feb. 2 that would ask the U.S. Department of Energy to investigate and stop the Aliso Canyon leak, and prevent similar disasters at the nation's more than 400 underground natural-gas storage sites. Sen. Boxer stood by a dramatic infrared photo that showed the otherwise invisible plume of methane-laced natural gas from the blowout. She told fellow senators in a speech on the Senate floor that the leak was a "nightmare." The Aliso Canyon may be only the first of countless gas fields at risk, the California senator said. "We better deal with it, and figure out how to deal with it," Sen. Boxer said. Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat who lives in the Porter Ranch neighborhood, announced on Feb. 2 that he's introducing legislation aimed at preventing future gas leaks by directing the federal Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to set safety standards for natural gas storage facilities. SOCAL GAS: Los Angeles DA Files Charges Over Natural Gas Leak ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Los Angeles prosecutors filed misdemeanor criminal charges on Feb. 2 against a utility for failing to immediately report a natural gas leak that has been gushing nonstop for nearly 15 weeks. District Attorney Jackie Lacey said the charges aren't a solution to the problem, but Southern California Gas Co. needs to be held responsible for the leak that has uprooted more than 4,400 families. The charges came the same day the state attorney general joined a long line of others in suing the gas company for the blowout that has spewed more than 2 million tons of climate-changing methane since October. Lawmakers in Congress have urged the U.S. secretary of energy to investigate the leak, and federal regulators are crafting new safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities. The criminal complaint charges the company with three counts of failing to report the release of a hazardous material and one count of discharge of air contaminants. The company didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. If convicted, the company could be fined up to $1,000 per day for air pollution violations and up to $25,000 for each of the three days it didn't notify the state Office of Emergency Services of the leak. The company said it discovered the leak Oct. 23 and notified state gas and oil regulators. But it failed to let state emergency officials know until Oct. 26, Attorney General Kamala Harris said in the latest of more than two dozen lawsuits filed against SoCalGas. The leak has created a public health and statewide environmental emergency, Ms. Harris said. The lawsuit, which doesn't specify damages, says the company created a nuisance and violated health and safety codes and the state's unfair competition law. A spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation and was focused on stopping the leak, which it expects to plug by the end of the month. SoCalGas is facing more than two dozen lawsuits -- including potential class-actions from residents and businesses over the leak as well as from regional air regulators and city and county authorities. Harris, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate, is the first state official to sue, though her lawsuit incorporates elements of lawsuits filed by the city and county of Los Angeles. Several state agencies are investigating the blowout and have issued orders to the gas company to stop it and turn over records of the 60-year-old well and others from the field that is the largest natural gas storage facility in the West. The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration got involved for the first time on Feb. 2, saying it is working to propose new regulations for gas storage and directing operators to "inspect and take immediate actions to ensure the safety of underground natural gas storage facilities across the country." U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat who lives in the Porter Ranch neighborhood that has been most affected by the gas leak, said the agency's advisory amounted to a note to industry saying, "not just please, but pretty please" follow the American Petroleum Institute's recommended practices for gas storage. "At a very minimum, those practices should be mandatory immediately," said Mr. Sherman, who is working on legislation that would require Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to set safety standards for natural gas storage facilities. The agency's advisory said gas storage operators should check for leaks and identify potential failures from corrosion and other damage. The agency said the SoCalGas gas leak probably came from a well casing. State regulators are investigating the cause of the leak, but they said they won't know until the well is plugged, which is expected by the end of the month. Residents have reported symptoms including headaches, nosebleeds and rashes, among other woes. Public health officials have blamed the maladies on odorant added to make the gas detectable. They have said the leak -- mostly methane but including trace elements of the carcinogen benzene -- is not expected to cause long-term health problems. California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, introduced a legislative amendment passed on Feb. 2 that would ask the U.S. Department of Energy to investigate and stop the Aliso Canyon leak and prevent similar disasters at the nation's more than 400 underground natural-gas storage sites. Boxer stood by a dramatic infrared photo that showed the otherwise invisible plume of methane-laced natural gas from the blowout. She told fellow senators in a speech on the Senate floor that the leak was a "nightmare." SPARK NETWORKS: "Hoffman" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud ----------------------------------------------------- Harold M. Hoffman, and all others similarly situated v. Spark Networks USA, LLC, Case No. BER-L-10569-15 (N.J. Super. App. Div., December 14, 2015), seeks damages for Defendant's alleged violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff brings this action for redress for a deliberate, calculated, fraudulent scheme and conspiracy hatched by Defendant and its electronic marketing partner, MJT Marketing, Inc., a known marketing scammer, which no longer even exists as a legal entity, having had its corporate charter administratively dissolved by the State of Oregon. The Defendant is a company headquartered in California that claims to offer online personal communities for single adults that offer convenient and safe places to meet. It owns, operates and markets, among other services, a dating service for Jewish singles under the domain name JDATE.COM. The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold M. Hoffman 240 Grand Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 Tel: (201) 569-0086 Fax: (201) 221-7890 E-mail: hoffman.eso@verizqn.net SUN FUNG: Recalls Japanese Style Anchovy Due to Gluten ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sun Fung Foods (Canada) Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10233 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Marine Japanese 130 g All packages 4 891214 595576 Food Style where gluten Anchovy is not declared on the label. SYNTHES USA: Recalls SynReam Medullary Reamer Head 13.5mm --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 7, 2015 Posting date: January 7, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-56458 The affected part number (352.135) and lot (F-17180) listed is etched as dimension 13.5mm while the actual dimension is 14mm. Affected products: A. SynReam Medullary Reamer Head 13.5mm Lot or serial number: F-17180 Model or catalog number: 352.135 Manufacturer: Synthes USA LLC 1101 SYNTHES AVENUE Monument 80132 Colorado UNITED STATES TECHNICAL CONSUMER: Recalls LED Parabolic Aluminized Reflectors --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 8, 2015 Posting date: December 8, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Electrical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56138 The recall involves the LED parabolic aluminized reflector ("PAR") 38 wet location light bulb sold for use in outdoor fixtures and security lights. It was sold in Canada under the TCP brand name. The following TCP item numbers and manufacturing date codes were affected. Item Number Date Code ----------- --------- L14P38D30KFL 1523211 1523212 L14P38D50KFL 1524211 Both the item number and the date code are stamped permanently on the white plastic housing of the lamp. The date codes indicate they were manufactured during the period from May 25, 2015 through July 17, 2015. Water may get into the light bulb posing a shock hazard to the consumer if they touch the bulb when powered. Neither Health Canada nor Technical Consumer Products has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these light bulbs. Approximately 1,354 units were sold in Canada and about 25,000 were distributed in the United States. The recalled products were sold in Canada and the United States from July 2015 to October 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Zhenjiang Qiangling Electronics Co LTD Zhenjiang, Jiangsu CHINA Distributor: Technical Consumer Products, Inc. Aurora Ohio UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled light bulbs and contact Technical Consumer Products for a replacement product that conforms to the design specifications. For more information, consumers may contact Technical Consumer Products by telephone at 1-800-324-1496 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, by email or visit the company's website and click on "Recall". Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/k9q80F TILLY'S INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Christiansen" Denied ----------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a court has denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case, Kirstin Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34- 2013-139010. "On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card and recording such information, subject to exceptions. The complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees," the Company said. "In June 2013, the Court granted our motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs have amended the complaint. The parties have completed class certification discovery and briefing, and a hearing was held on August 13, 2015." On September 17, 2015, the Court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification. "We intend to defend this case vigorously," the Company said. TILLY'S INC: "Rebolledo" Parties Reached Settlement --------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the parties have attended a mediation proceeding and reached a resolution of the case, Maria Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE- CXC "On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things," the Company said. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013, to add a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act. "In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on appeal. In October 2014, we filed an answer to the amended complaint. The parties recently attended a mediation proceeding and reached a resolution that will be presented to the Court for approval," the Company said. TILLY'S INC: To Defend Against "Whitten" Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend vigorously the case, Karina Whitten, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 548252. "On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action and representative Private Attorney General Act lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things," the Company said. "The complaint seeks class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 3, 2014, removing the expense reimbursement claim. We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015." TILLY'S INC: To Defend Against "Ward" Class Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. intends to defend vigorously the case, Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, Tilly's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015. "On September 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against us, alleging violations of California's wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair competition law," the Company said. "The complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees." TRI-STATE: Acadia Fights Bauer Policy Coverage Counterclaim ----------------------------------------------------------- Molly English-Bowers, writing for MadisonRecord.com, reports that for a Maine-based insurance company is suing because it believes the claims against a defendant, a former client, aren't coverable under the policy it had with it. Acadia Insurance Co. filed the suit Jan. 26 in U.S. District Court of the Southern Division of Illinois against Tri-State Water Treatment Inc., Michael Bauer and Stacey Bauer. According to the complaint, on June 5, the Bauers filed a class- action counterclaim against defendant Tri-State in Madison County Circuit Court, which is referred to as the Bauer Counterclaim. That suit states that Tri-State's marketing tactics for its water purification systems are unfair, unjust and deceptive. It further states that the class will ultimately consist of several thousand members in Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. The plaintiff issued a multi-peril commercial lines policy to Tri- State for the period of Sept. 11, 2014, to Sept. 11, 2015. The policy provides commercial general liability coverage, commercial liability umbrella coverage and commercial excess liability coverage, and also includes commercial property damage, commercial auto coverage and commercial inland marine coverage, the suit states. However, the lawsuit claims, the Bauer Counterclaim does not seek damages that would activate coverage under those portions of the policy and are not germane to this complaint for declaratory judgment. One of the damages it seeks, for example, is for "personal and advertising injury," the suit states. The plaintiff seeks from the court a determination of the rights and liabilities with respect to the policy; that the Bauer Counterclaim does not allege an injury sufficient to trigger coverage, in addition to the other claims in the lawsuit; find and declare that the plaintiff has no duty under the policy to defendant Tri-State against the Bauer Counterclaim; and grant the plaintiff other relief the court deems proper. The plaintiff is represented by Kent J. Cummings and Dana A. Rice of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP of Chicago. U.S. District Court of the Southern Division of Illinois case number 16-cv-94 TWO WAYS RESTAURANT: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Agustin Perez, On Behalf Of Himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, The Plaintiff, v. Two Ways Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Evergreen Diner, John Argenas, Ilias Argenas, Ioannis Argenas and Athanusios Maurikis, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00019-RA-SN (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid pay "spread of hours" premium, statutory penalties, damages for unreasonably delayed payments, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements of the action under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. Two Ways Restaurant Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York, with a principal place of business and address at New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 U.S. COURTS: Overcharges PACER Fees, "Fisher" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Bryndon Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. James C. Duff, in his official capacity as the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and The United States of America, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05944-BHS (W.D. Wash. (Tacoma), December 29, 2015), seeks to recover compensation for overcharge payments in using the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system (PACER). The PACER allegedly claims to charge users $0.10 for each page in a docket report, up to a maximum charge of $3.00 per transaction. These overcharge payments allegedly constitute an illegal exaction in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The PACER is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information online from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts. PACER is provided by the Federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N 34th Street Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816 6603 Facsimile: (206) 319 5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Noah M. Schubert, Esq. Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Ctr, Ste 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111-4018 Telephone: (415) 788 4220 Facsimile: (415) 788 0161 E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com U.S. WELL SERVICES: Faces "Lackie" Wage-and-Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Jeff Lackie And William Crandell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daniel Layton; Cornelius Dupre II; Gregg Falgout; Steve Orlando; Brian Stewart; Edward S. Self III; Jeffrey Mcpherson; and Kenneth Sill, c/o U.S. Well Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-03126-ALM-NMK (S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, December 30, 2015), seeks to recover liability against the policies and practices of Defendants that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Ohio and Pennsylvania wage-and-hour statutes. Lackie worked for U.S. Well Services, LLC, and for the Defendants as an hourly employee in Cambridge, Ohio U.S. Well Services, LLC provides drilling services and equipment to shale oil and gas operations in the northeastern United States. The company's corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201 Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: 330-470-4428 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Downie, Esq. CHAGRIN LAW 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104 Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Tel: 440-973-9000 E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com - and - Steven G. Thomakos, Esq. STEVEN G. THOMAKOS, LLC P.O. Box 944 221 Front Avenue, S.W. New Philadelphia, OH 44663 Telephone: (330) 308 0500 E-mail: thomakoslaw6@aol.com UBER TECH: Skimmed Drivers' Tips, "Ortega" Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- Jose Ortega and Joce Martinez, on their own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies Inc., Rasier LLC, Uber USA LLC, Uber New York LLC, Uber Transportation LLC, John Doe "Uber Affiliates," fictitious name used to identify presently unknown entities, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07387 (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015), seeks compensatory, consequential, liquidated, statutory, and punitive damages against the Defendants. Defendants have also violated New York state law by failing to remit gratuities to the plaintiffs which UBER riders believe they have paid as part of the quoted and charged fare. Uber Technologies is a foreign corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, is authorized to transact business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip M. Hines, Esq. Marc J. Held, Esq. Scott B. Richman, Esq. HELD & HINES, LLP 2004 Ralph Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 531 9700 Facsimile: (718) 444 5768 Email: phines@heldhines.com mheld@heldhines.com srichman@heldhines.com UBER TECH: Drivers Sue in N.Y. over Exclusionary Requirements ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that midway through a minimum- compensation offer for drivers last year, Uber introduced new exclusionary requirements -- involving monthly opt-in emails and completing one trip per hour -- three New Yorkers claim in a federal class action in Brooklyn. UBER TECH: Calif. Court Hears Arguments in Drivers' Tips Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco, on Feb. 3, did not appear to buy an Uber attorney's arguments that he should dismiss a class action accusing the company of withholding tips from drivers. Uber attorney Theodore Boutrous -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, told U.S. District Judge Edward Chen that the class led by former Uber driver Hakan Yucesoy has not pleaded an essential element in its third amended complaint: how Uber's marketing campaign about tips being included persuaded riders not to give them. Without such specificity, Boutrous said, the class doesn't have a claim. Yucesoy's original complaint, filed in Massachusetts in 2014, accused Uber of misinforming customers that tips are included in the fare. He said that without this misinformation, customers would tip, as is customary in the taxi industry. Yucesoy et al. claimed that Uber ran a pervasive online ad campaign that told riders they need not tip their drivers because gratuities are included in the cost of the ride. Uber calls those claims "vague and generic," and says drivers must show exactly where and when Uber made the statements and whether riders saw them and relied on them. Plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- told Judge Chen that in her 15 years of litigating the Massachusetts tips law, she has never encountered an instance in which plaintiffs were required to, in essence, prove their claims at the pleading stage. "No court has required that degree of specificity," Liss-Riordan said. "Under Massachusetts tips law, the standard is what a reasonable customer believes to be the case, if they believe the charge at issue to be a gratuity. We don't need to find every customer who rode with Mr. Yucesoy and ask them what they knew. It will be for a jury to determine whether a reasonable customer would have believed that this was a tip." But Boutrous said the standard for pleading should be higher in a case where the deception is attenuated: i.e., where riders are the ones being deceived about whether drivers receive their share of the supposedly included tip. "If Mr. Yucesoy came in and said there were statements on a website and people may have been exposed to them and might not have given me a tip, that's not a claim. There's no allegation of exposure or that any individual was exposed to these statements," Boutrous said. "These are much sketchier allegations. They can't connect the dots." Chen took the arguments under submission. He said he would weigh whether there was enough public exposure to Uber's representations about tips. But the judge added: "It seems unrealistic to require that degree of specificity that you have to show that a particular passenger was exposed and relied upon a specific representation. It seems to me there's enough specificity to get the next stage." UBER TECH: Taxi Drivers Seek Injunction to Halt Quebec Service -------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Wilton, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that taxi drivers are stepping up their battle against the ride-sharing service Uber. The drivers' union will seek a court injunction to try to stop Uber from operating in Quebec and force the company to shut down its Uber X mobile application service in the province. Drivers and union leaders say they have to get help from the courts because the Quebec government continues to allow Uber and its drivers to flout provincial laws governing the taxi industry. About 600 taxi drivers gathered at College Maisonneuve on Jan. 31 to come up with a plan to fight Uber. Several taxi drivers who spoke to the Montreal Gazette said their earnings have dropped between 30 and 35 per cent since Uber came to Montreal only two years ago. "My gross salary used to be about $35,000 and now it's about $24,000 or $21,000," said taxi driver Farhat Dan. "Uber can only offer cheaper fares because they don't have the same expenses as us. It's like illegal cigarettes. People buy it because it's cheaper, not because it's safer." He and his fellow taxi drivers say Uber is putting their livelihood in jeopardy because they're losing fares and the value of their taxi permits has plummeted. On Feb. 10, taxi drivers will hold a protest in Montreal and will track down Uber drivers and "denounce them to authorities," said Benoit Jugand, a spokesperson for the steelworkers union, which is representing about 4,000 taxi drivers in their legal action. Uber provides ride-sharing services through a mobile application. The UberX service allows car owners to offer lifts to passengers and charge them a fee. The fee is taken though credit cards, and is generally lower than fees charged by taxis. Taxi drivers have complained Uber engages in unfair competition since UberX drivers don't pay for expensive taxi permits, which in Montreal can cost as much as $200,000. "We want to stop Uber everywhere in Quebec because they are illegal," said Alain Croteau, director of the steelworkers union in Quebec. "The taxi drivers have rights and they have to be respected." Uber operates in more than 300 cities worldwide. In November, Uber said more than 20,000 Montrealers are downloading their app each month. Recently, the city of Edmonton legalized the service after failing to shut down Uber with a court injunction. The city of Toronto also failed to obtain a court order to close Uber. Montreal's Taxi Bureau has been going after individual UberX drivers and has seized about 300 of their cars. Drivers are fined $500, and then must pay about $1,000 to get their cars out of an impound lot. However, nearly every time a car has been seized, the driver has contested the action in court, as Uber has said it will provide a lawyer for the affected drivers. The Taxi Bureau is using a section of a provincial law governing transport by taxi -- which states anyone being remunerated for transporting someone with a car needs to have a taxi license -- to justify the seizures. The union representing taxi drivers said it has already filed an application for a class-action lawsuit against Uber and the Quebec government to defend Quebec laws governing the taxi industry and to seek compensation to cover drivers' lost wages, said lawyer Marc-Antoine Cloutier. Uber Canada issued the following statement about the class action- lawsuit. "This protectionist class-action lawsuit is without merit, especially since some Quebec taxi companies are saying they had a record year in 2015," the statement reads. "As we have seen from court rulings across Canada, Uber is a business model distinct from traditional taxi services." UBER TECH: "Berger" Suit in Calif. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Berger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16- cv-00041-MEJ (N.D. Cal., January 1, 2016), seeks restitution in the amount of unpaid wages earned and due as advertised in Uber's "Winter Warmup" promotion and such other legal and equitable relief from Defendants' alleged unlawful and willful conduct as Court deems just and proper, pursuant to Unfair Competition Law. Uber Technologies provides a smartphone application that connects drivers with people who need a ride. The company's application enables users to arrange and schedule transportation and/or logistics services with third party providers. Uber Technologies serves customers in North, Central, and South Americas, as well as Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company has a strategic partnership with Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. Uber was formerly known as UberCab Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies, Inc. in October 2010. The company was founded in 2009 and is based in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. Amy T. Wootton, Esq. HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC 555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA, 90013 Telephone: (213) 533 4160 Facsimile: (213) 533 4167 E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com awootton@hamnerlaw.com UNCLE T: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Egg and Gluten ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Gluten Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Uncle T Food Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10236 Uncle T Food Ltd. is recalling Hai Pa Wang brand Frozen Fish Dumpling with Cuttlefish from the marketplace because it contains egg and gluten which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg or gluten should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg or gluten, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Hai Pa Frozen Fish 110 g 2016.04.24 4 710572 001256 Wang Dumpling with Cuttlefish Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/oQRSTz UNITED CAPITAL: "Carollo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Deanna Carollo and Diana J. Owens, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. United Capital Corp., AFP Management Corp. and AFP 101 CORP, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00013-GLS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., January 5, 2016), seeks to recover damages in the form of unpaid wages as well as injunctive relief and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Minimum Wage Act United Capital is a foreign business corporation licensed to conduct business in the State of New York. It is based in Great Neck, New York. The Company has annual gross volume of sales made or business done exceeding $500,000, exclusive of excise taxes. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. Michael J. Lingle, Esq. Sarah E. Cressman, Esq. Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14607 Telephone: (585) 272 0540 E-mail: nthomas@theen1ploymentattorneys.com mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com scressman@theemploymentatorneys.com jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com URANIUM ENERGY: Defending "Stephens" Securities Action ------------------------------------------------------ Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that Heather M. Stephens filed on June 29, 2015, a class action complaint against the Company and two of its executive officers in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, with an amended class action complaint filed on November 16, 2015 (the "Securities Case"). The Securities Case seeks unspecified damages and alleges the defendants violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cold-FX Study Results Not Published ------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Blackwell, writing for National Post, reports that the makers of Cold-FX have sat for years on a study that suggested Canada's most popular cold and flu remedy was no more effective than a placebo in treating symptoms of the viruses. The 2004 trial was conducted by Dr. Gerry Predy, a top Alberta public-health official, at a time when the supplement's makers told consumers the product would bring fast relief from the effects of such ailments. Dr. Predy continued to do other research on Cold-FX -- based on people taking it over months as a preventive measure -- and spoke of its prophylactic benefits well after 2004. But it appears neither he nor the manufacturers have ever publicly divulged results of the short-term treatment trial. The study has just surfaced in a class-action lawsuit against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, the Quebec drug giant that now owns the product after buying Edmonton's Afexa Life Sciences in 2011. "If true, this kind of information should have been disclosed," argues John Green, the Vancouver lawyer spearheading the class action. "If it had been disclosed, it would probably have been the end of Afexa Life Sciences." Companies like Afexa and Valeant are not legally obliged in this country to release any trial results. The Cold-FX report was filed with Health Canada, according to the court document, but the government is barred from making such proprietary information public. Other, more positive Cold-FX studies, looking at its effects when taken preventively over a number of months, have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Renee Soto, a spokeswoman for Valeant, said the company would not discuss any matter related to ongoing litigation. Dr. Predy, who is now Alberta's senior medical officer of health, said he can't recall if the study was submitted to a journal for publication and rejected or "if we decided not to submit it given that it was not likely to be published given the results." Cold-FX, invented in Edmonton and promoted by sports celebrities like Hockey Night in Canada's Don Cherry, had Canadian sales in 2011 of more than $117 million, suggests data disclosed in the lawsuit. The substance is based on a specially prepared Ginseng extract and, unlike most natural-health products, has actually undergone fairly rigorous scientific study. Some of the resulting evidence suggests that if people take the supplement daily for two months or more, the number and severity of respiratory illnesses they suffer will be modestly reduced. But the lawsuit Mr. Green is handling alleges the company misled consumers until the last few years by suggesting Cold-FX could treat colds and flu after they start. Packaging and other marketing, for instance, used to say the supplement could "stop cold and flu in their tracks," "help provide effective relief" or bring "immediate relief" of symptoms. Until now, no studies have surfaced publicly that actually addressed the pills' value in treating -- rather than preventing - - bugs. VERIZON: Sonoma Agencies Join Statewide Suit for Overcharging ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McCallum, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that three Sonoma County government agencies have joined a class-action suit claiming the nation's largest wireless carriers have overcharged them more than $600,000. Santa Rosa, Sonoma County and the Sonoma County Water Agency are part of the suit in Sacramento County Superior Court alleging that Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile overcharged at least 42 California public agencies more than $100 million. The lawsuit has been working its way through the courts for three years, but only was unsealed in December. The case alleges that the carriers failed to provide the government agencies cellular services at the lowest cost, as called for in their contracts. "We've done enough of an investigation to believe that we have been damaged in excess of $500,000 over the course of the last five years due to the carriers' failure to comply with the terms of the contract," Deputy County Counsel Phyllis Gallagher said. Santa Rosa's initial estimate is that it was overcharged about $100,000 over the same period, City Attorney Caroline Fowler said. The public agencies involved range from huge entities such as the city of Sacramento and Orange County to smaller school, water, library and fire districts around the state. Entities with numerous mobile devices and wireless plans such as big businesses and government agencies typically don't have the expertise to analyze whether they are getting the lowest-cost plan to which are entitled, said Wayne Lamprey, a San Francisco-based attorney who is representing a wireless contractor that acted as the whistleblower in the case. So the public agencies put that burden back on the wireless carriers, requiring them to automatically provide quarterly reports showing them how they could get the best deal, he explained. "The contract is completely clear," Lamprey said. And yet the carriers in most cases never provided the rate optimization reports, which could have reduced most agencies' bills by 20 to 30 percent, Lamprey said. By skipping the reports, the carriers were able to generate higher revenues than they were entitled to, he said. "This is public money. This is taxpayer dollars we're talking about," Lamprey said. The case began in 2012 after OntheGo Wireless, LLC, a contractor for Verizon that provided plan optimization analysis, claimed the carrier initially planned to perform the reports for government customers but backtracked, Lamprey said. The lawsuit was filed under the California False Claims Act, which provides penalties when false claims for payment are submitted to state agencies. It was filed under seal to allow the Department of Justice and local agencies to investigate and decide if they wanted to participate, Lamprey said. The Santa Rosa City Council and Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in 2015 held closed-door meetings to discuss the case, then described only as "Under Seal v. Under Seal" out of Sacramento County. By joining the case, the agencies stand to reap a larger share of any funds or damages recovered, Gallagher explained. "By intervening, there's just not a lot to lose and everything to gain," she said. Most of the county's wireless accounts are with Verizon, she said. Heidi Flato, a Verizon spokeswoman, said the company had complied with its contractual obligations. VIRTUOSO SOURCING: Collection Practices Illegal, "Sperber" Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meyer Sperber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Virtuoso Sourcing Group, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07390-CBA-JO (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015), seeks to recover damages against Defendant's alleged abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices while attempting to collect on debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant is a debt collector with principal place of business located in Glendale, Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com VITAL DRUGS: "Canela" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Benny Canela, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Booth Memorial Ave Drugs Inc.; Vital Drugs, Inc.; Vital Pharmacies Inc. D/B/A Vital Drugs; Shahzad Nawaz; jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07419-WFK-RML (E.D.N.Y, December 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, and such other relief available by law, as a result of Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minimum Wage Act, and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours each workweek, yet the defendants willfully failed to pay the plaintiff and party plaintiffs overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The defendants are all New York business corporation with its offices in Queens County. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229 2249 Facsimile: (212) 229 2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com VITAL THERAPIES: Faces "Halverstadt" Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Alicia Beach Halverstadt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vital Therapies, Inc., Terry Winters, and Michael V. Swanson, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv- 02951-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover damages against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Vital Therapies is Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at San Diego, California. Terry Winters has been Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since June 2003. Michael V. Swanson ("Swanson") has been Chief Financial Officer of Vital Therapies since August 2013. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532 6449 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697 6484 Facsimile: (212) 697 7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com VIZIO INC: Faces "Jewett" Suit Over TV Tracking Software -------------------------------------------------------- Richard Jewett, David Quintanar, Ivee Tolbert, Charon Wright, and Rory Zufolo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Vizio, Inc., Vizio Holdings, Inc., Vizio Inscape Services, LLC, Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC, and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv- 06281-JD (N.D. Cal., San Fracisco/Oakland Division, December 29, 2015), seeks to prevent Defendants from continuing to operate and maintain their Smart TV Tracking Software and further seeks an award of damages (actual, liquidated, and/or punitive), reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other preliminary and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances to remedy Defendants' wrongdoing alleged Violations. The Defendants violated the Video Privacy Protection Act; Cal. Civ. Code; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; Fraudulent Omission; Negligent Omission; and Unjust Enrichment. Vizio, Inc., a California corporation, is one of the leading manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and marketers of Internet- connectable televisions in the United States, commonly known and referred to as Smart TVs. Vizio's Smart TVs offer integrated Internet capability that supports streaming of movies, television shows, and other programs from the Internet and popular application-based content providers such as Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu, YouTube, Pandora, and Spotify. VIZIO Holdings is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business located at Irvine, California. Vizio Inscape Services is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business located at Irvine, California. Vizio Holdings and Vizio Inscape Services do business throughout the United States and the State of California The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Dustin L. Schubert, Esq. Noah M. Schubert, Esq. Kathryn Y. Schubert, 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 dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com kschubert@schubertlawfirm.com VIZIO INC: Faces "Pagorek" Suit Over TV Tracking Software --------------------------------------------------------- Stanley W. Pagorek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vizio, Inc., a California corporation, and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00472-JD-PRC (N.D. Ind., Hammon Division, December 30, 2015), seeks injunctive and monetary relief as a result of Defendants' alleged surreptitious inclusion of tracking software on their high-definition internet connected televisions. The Vizio tracking software works by analyzing bits of the video and other visual programming its customers are watching, in real time. The technology then allows Vizio to determine the date, time, channel of programs, and whether customers watched this programming in real time or from a recording. Vizio, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business located at Irvine, California. Cognitive Media Networks is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at San Francisco, California 94103. The Defendants do business throughout the United States and the State of Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Pavich, Esq. Ian H. Levin, Esq. John J. Pavich, Esq. PAVICH LAW GROUP, P.C. 30 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1310 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 690 8400 E-mail: rpavich@pavichlawgroup.com ianhlevin@gmail.com jpavich@pavichlawgroup.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341 0400 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Walid J. Tamari, Esq. Catherine Towne, Esq. TAMARI LAW GROUP, LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2370 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 368 5000 E-mail: wtamari@tamarilaw.com ctowne@tamarilaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Recalls Audi A3 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 7, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 239 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015583TC ID number: 2015583 Manufacturer recall number: 74C9 Certain vehicles may have been manufactured with an incorrect or out of specification stitching in the driver and/or front passenger seat cover. In the event of a crash, this could prevent the side impact airbag from deploying correctly which could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the driver and/or passenger seat back covers as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- AUDI A3 2015 VTECH ELECTRONICS: "Donnell" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Donnell and A.D. and T.D., minors, and all others similarly situated v. VTech Electronics North America, LLC and VTech Holdings Limited, Case No. 1:15-cv-11280 (N.D. Ill., December 15, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of contract and negligence. The Plaintiff alleged that because VTech's security was inadequate, on November 14, 2015, hackers obtained personal information from more than 2.8 million children in the United States, as well as their parents. VTech confirmed and admitted that an "unauthorized party accessed VTech customer data." The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of digital learning toys. Their products allow children to browse the Internet and communicate with each other. Parents can also download educational content for their children, including learning games and e-books. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - Steven W. Teppler, Esq. ABBOTT LAW GROUP P.A. 2929 Plummer Cove Road Jacksonville, FL 32223 Tel: (904) 292-1111 E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com - and - Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Tel: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 South Gay Street Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2015 Posting date: December 11, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56258 This recall involves various seasonal lights. The affected product names, model numbers and CSA file numbers are listed below. Description Model # CSA File # ----------- ------- ---------- spruiked Holiday Time 25 HPCAL25WCX/1S, 241989 LED (C7) Light HPCAL25WAX/1S, Set - Various HPCAL25WX/1S Colours Holiday Time 25 HPCAL25WCX/1S, 241989 LED (C9) Light HPCAL25WAX/1S, Set - Various HPCAL25WX/1S Colours Holiday Time 25 HPCAL25WCX/1S, 241989 LED (QUICK CLIP) HPCAL25WAX/1S Light Set - Various Colours HPCAL35WAX/1S, 241989 Holiday Time 35 HPCAL35WX/1S, LED (C6) Light HPCAL35WCX/1S Set - Various Colours Holiday Time 50 HPCAL35WAX/1S, 241989 Mini Light Set HPCAL35WCX/1S Indoor/Outdoor Holiday Time 50 HPCA50WBX/1S 241989 Mini Light Set Indoor/Outdoor Holiday Time 50 HPCAL50WAX/2S, 241989 LED (M5) Light Set HPCAL50WCX/2S - Various Colours Holiday Time 50 HPCAL50WAX/2S 241989 LED (G12) Light Set - Various Colours Holiday Time 500 HPCA250WBX/5S 241989 (2x250)CT Mini Light set Holiday Time 70 HPCAL70WAX/2S, 241989 LED (C6) Light Set HPCAL70WCX/2S, - Various Colours HPCAL70WX/2S Holiday Time HPCAL70WAX/2SN, 241989 LED RIBBON Light HPCAL70WCX/2SN Set - Various Colours Holiday Time 80 HPCAL80WCX/2S, 241989 LED (C9) Light Set HPCAL80WAX/2S - Various Colours Holiday Time 100 HPCAL100WAX/4S, 241989 LED M5 Light Set HPCAL100WCX/2S - Various Colours Holiday Time 100 HPCA100BX/2S 241989 Mini Light Set Holiday Time 100 HPCA100WBX/2S 241989 INC Light Set (Multi Colour and Clear) Holiday Time 100 HPCA100WBX/2SI 241989 Outdoor Curtain Light Set - Various Colours Holiday Time 150 CT HPCA150WBX/3S 241989 7FT INC GARLAND Light Set (Multi Colour and Clear) Holiday Time 150 CT HPCA150WBX/3SI 241989 INC ICICLE Light Set (Multi Colour and Clear) Holiday Time 200 HPCA200WBX/4S 241989 Outdoor INC Light Set Holiday Time 300 HPCA150WBX/3S 241989 CT Outdoor INC Light Set (Multi Colour and Clear) Holiday Time 140 HPCA140WBX/3SC 241989 LED 3F SUPER BRITE MEMORY LITE SET 20 CT Indoor Light HPCA20WX/1S 241989 Set - Various Colours 50 CT Outdoor Light HPCA50WBX/1S 241989 Set - Various Colours 100 CT Light Set HPCA100WBX/2S 241989 Indoor/Outdoor - Various Colours Consumers can find the model number, CSA file number 241989, and the manufacturing date 06/2015 on the white tag affixed to the wire. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program, as well as testing completed by Wal-Mart Canada Corp., has determined that the seasonal lights may pose an overheating and fire hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 487,041 units of the seasonal lights were sold at Walmart Canada retail stores across Canada. The recalled products were sold from August 2015 to November 2015. Manufactured in China. Importer: Wal-Mart Canada Corp. Mississauga Ontario CANADA Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co. Ltd. Zhejiang CHINA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal lights and return them to a Walmart Canada retail store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Wal-Mart Canada Corp. customer service toll-free at 1-800-328-0402 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ZYHqWs WALT DISNEY: Hired Cheaper, Foreign Workers, Class Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that two former theme park workers claim in court that Walt Disney World conspired with two consulting companies to replace U.S.-born employees with cheaper, foreign workers. Former Disney employees Dena Moore and Leo Perrero filed separate class action lawsuits against Disney, Cognizant Technology Solutions and HCL Incorporated, alleging not only that the companies conspired to get rid of them, but that the entertainment giant made its U.S.-born employees train foreign workers before firing them. The two former IT workers were among hundreds of theme park workers laid off by Disney last year. Moore and Perrero claim the companies used H-1B visas to hire the new foreign workers. The H-1B visa allows U.S. companies to employ foreign professionals in industries short on qualified workers for a short period of time. The new workers do not become green card holders or citizens. But federal law also places certain stipulations on the visas, such as prohibiting companies from using H-1B visas to displace U.S. workers. According to the complaint, HCL and Cognizant sponsored the incoming foreign workers and Disney filed the visa petitions. Among the conditions of the visa petition: "The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S. worker." Moore and Perrero claim Disney management told hundreds of employees in the company's IT department to begin training visa holders in October 2014 before layoffs the coming January. If the employees did not stay and train their replacements, they would not receive bonuses or a severance. According to the complaint, Disney management told employees there would be job openings for them, but only a few former workers were ultimately hired. Sara Blackwell of Sarasota-based The Blackwell Firm, who is representing the plaintiffs, said this is a problem not just with Disney but companies across the country. "It is so prevalent but Americans don't know about it," she said. "Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been losing their jobs this way. . . If you look at the tech field, the salaries are super low and job security is really bad. Many Americans aren't able to compete because of companies bringing these foreign workers." In a statement, Disney called the lawsuit "completely and utterly baseless." "The fact is that, since our reorganization, Disney Parks has hired more than 140 US IT workers, and is currently recruiting candidates to fill over 100 more IT positions," the statement reads. "Additionally, we also rehired more than 100 workers affected by the reorganization into other roles in the company. The complaints by one of the plaintiffs, Ms. Moore, that she was not offered a position are completely false -- she was offered a position at comparable pay and turned it down. Those are the facts." Blackwell said Moore applied for "over a hundred jobs," but never landed a position. Six months into a new job, Moore received a call from Disney for a temporary project, Blackwell said, but the start date was moved, so Moore stayed with her current employer. Blackwell also questions Disney's claim of 100 rehirings. "Show them to me," she said. "Send the jobs over!" HCL and Cognizant did not respond to e-mailed requests for comment. H-1B visas have gained wider notice recently after Republican presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump tussled over the issue. The H-1B visa is the most popular work visa and some of the candidates contend companies regularly abuse them to hire cheap labor. The lawsuit against Disney's use of H-1B visas is a first in the country, said Blackwell, but probably won't be the last. "I have more plaintiffs waiting in the queue," Blackwell said. "All of these companies are on my hit list." WASHINGTON COUNTY, UT: Sued Over Public Defender System Problems ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Miller, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that one attorney has filed a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of criminal defendants who were given public defenders in Washington County. The lawsuit claims public defenders who work those contracts are overworked, underpaid and are not given the proper support to defend their clients. The national standard case load for felony cases is 150 per year, according to Hart. But in 2015, one public defender said he and another attorney in Washington County closed out 712 cases, and 540 of those were felony cases. They were paid, on average, $140 per case. Washington County administrator Dean Cox said they won't be making any changes to their public defender contracts until they see what happens at the Legislature, but pointed out that his county does have a separate fund for defense experts and other expenses which public defenders have access to. "This is something that I take very seriously," Mr. Cox said. "I know that the county commission does, as well. It benefits no one when defendants are inadequately represented." WAYFAIR: Gives Bogus "Discounts," Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Wayfair, an Internet merchant specializing in furniture, offers bogus "discounts" from false "original" prices, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. WEB.COM GROUP: Faces Class Suit over August Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Web.com Group's inadequate security allowed a data breach of millions of people's credit records and other personal information in August last year, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. WHOLE FOODS: Calif. Judge Tosses PETA Suit with Leave to Amend -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a fraud class action against Whole Foods led by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, over ads touting the supermarket chain's high animal- welfare standards. U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins said the complaint brought by the animal rights group was short on details about which ads were misleading, but said they could file a third amended complaint and try again. PETA and Whole Foods shopper Lori Grass sued Whole Foods in September 2015, targeting the high-end grocer's five-step animal welfare rating system for meat suppliers as a "sham." Whole Foods rolled out its five-step rating system developed by the Global Animal Partnership in 2009, and expanded it nationwide in 2011. All its suppliers must meet Step 1 standards to sell products in Whole Foods stores, which say its suppliers use "no crates, cages or crowding." But PETA says suppliers fail to live up to even the lowest standard, and Whole Foods only requires that they submit to one scheduled audit every 15 months. Neither Whole Foods nor PETA attorneys returned requests for comment. In dismissing PETA and Grass' false advertising claims with leave to amend, Cousins said they must be more specific as to which ads Grass relied on when buying meat at Whole Foods. "For example, plaintiffs attach multiple exemplar photographs to the complaint, but it is not clear in the photographs which placards and signs they allege are illegal, are not preempted, and were relied on by Grass," Cousins wrote. Relying on a ruling by the California Supreme Court in In re Tobacco II Cases, PETA's lawyers had argued that the group is not required to prove individualized reliance on specific false statements as long as they can show those ads were part of a long- running ad campaign and that Grass relied on the campaign's "cumulative message." The argument did not convince Cousins, who wrote on Jan. 29 that while PETA claims Whole Foods inundated its customers with signs, placards and napkins for four years, "it is not clear from the second amended complaint which signs and placards were deceptive advertising, over what time period they were placed in the store and Grass was exposed to them, and therefore whether the alleged advertising campaign rises to the level required under Tobacco II. PETA has until Feb. 16 to file an amended complaint. The case captioned, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS and LORI GRASS, Plaintiffs, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.15-cv-04301 NC (N.D. Cal.). WORD ALIVE: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 10, 2015 Posting date: December 10, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Burn Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56220 This recall involves the following two styles of ceramic mugs: Pastor's Wife model number 18208 and Serve with Gladness model number 18209. The Pastor's Wife mug is cream colour on the outside and teal on the inside with the phrase "Pastor's Wife" on one side and "We Always Thank God and Pray For You" on the other side. The Serve with Gladness mug is cream colour inside and outside with the phrase "Serve with Gladness" on one side and "Anyone who loves is a child of God" inside a multi-coloured floral arrangement on the other side. Model number 18208 or 18209 is printed on a UPC sticker on the bottom of the mug. Hot liquids can seep through hairline cracks, posing a burn hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Word Alive, Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. The American importer, Lighthouse Christian Products, has received one report of a consumer incident related to this product in the United States. Lighthouse Christian Products is not aware of any injuries to consumers related to the use of this product. Approximately 48 units of the "Pastor's Wife" and 18 units of the "Serve with Gladness" recalled ceramic mugs were distributed in Canada. The recalled products were sold online from July 2015 through October 2015 in Canada through Word Alive, Inc. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Chaozhou Fengxi Yuemang Ceramics Craft Manufactory GuangDong Province Fengxi Chaozhou City CHINA Importer: Lighthouse Christian Products Co. Schaumburg Illinois UNITED STATES Distributor: Word Alive, Inc. Winnipeg Manitoba CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ceramic mugs and contact Word Alive, Inc. for return instructions to receive a full refund. For more information, consumers can contact Word Alive, Inc. toll- free at 1-800-665-1468 between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST, Monday through Friday, or by email. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/SX2OXZ ZILLOW: Court Rejects Disclosure-Only Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- AllAboutAlpha reports that the Delaware Court of Chancery has become increasingly hostile of late to lawsuits that challenge corporate mergers on fiduciary grounds. This is important, because the course of recent decades certain boilerplate sorts of lawsuits have become a regular feature of the mergers-and- acquisitions landscape in the U.S. The law has allowed certain attorneys to make a regular and lucrative practice out of challenging acquisitions, then quickly settling their challenges on terms that involve some additional undramatic disclosures, six- figure fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys, and little or nothing else. If the Chancery Court can force a cut back on that practice, it will have redefined the M&A world, and the sorts of arb play that operate within that world. Zillow and Trulia In the Trulia case, issued Jan. 22, the court continued this trend, rejecting a disclosure-only settlement of a stockholder class-action lawsuit challenging Zillow's acquisition of Trulia. Each was an online real-estate database company. They announced the acquisition in July 2014. Soon after that public announcement, four Trulia stockholders filed what the court calls "essentially identical complaints" saying that Trulia's directors had breached their fiduciary obligation by approving the deal. Before four months had passed, though, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle on settlement. The complaints, and the settlement, are of a sort that has become suspect because . . . well, it doesn't seem to help anybody other than the plaintiff's lawyers. The settlement agreement provides for the lawyers' fees, but otherwise no money changes hands. Does something else valuable change hands? Like, say . . . information? The settlement is structured to give that impression, anyway. It's a disclosure settlement: Trulia agreed to supplement the already-released proxy materials with some additional information. But Chancellor Andre Bouchard concluded in his review of the proposed settlement that "none of the supplemental disclosures were material or even helpful to Trulia's stockholder's, and thus the proposed settlement does not afford them any meaningful consideration to warrant providing a release of claims to the defendants. Accordingly, I decline to approve the proposed settlement." Morgan's Analysis The supplemental disclosure involved an analysis of the deal drafted by JPMorgan. What it added to the proxy disclosure that had come about regardless of the lawsuit were the releases of certain "synergy" numbers, comparable transaction multiples, public trading multiples, and implied terminal EBITDA multiples for a relative discounted cash flow analysis. Some of that new information was not really new. Let's look at the first item. There were two synergies figures involved in Morgan's analysis. One was used as part of its "intrinsic value approach" to valuation, the other as part of its "market based approach." Both figures were present in the original proxy materials, although the market based figure of $100 million was easier to find. The $175 million figure, pursuant to the intrinsic value approach, was present in a table titled "Trulia Management Estimated Synergies." The "disclosure" of the $175 million figure pursuant to the settlement amounted to the repetition of that figure in another, more prosaic and methodological, context. Chancellor Bouchard's opinion rejecting the settlement in this particular case also cautioned attorneys who bring such actions, and accept such settlements, quite generally, that they can expect that the Chancery Court "will be increasingly vigilant in scrutinizing" such proposals going forward. A Fair Summary is a Summary Plaintiffs originally made sweeping charges, going far beyond the disclosure issue. They maintained that Trulia's board had failed to get the highest exchange ratio available in the stock-for-stock deal, and that it had agreed to preclusive provisions that impeded its ability to consider alternative, possibly superior proposals. But, Chancellor Bouchard observes, the brief filed in support of the motion for an injunction against the acquisition didn't argue for the other issues, it focused entirely on the disclosure claims, as if seeking simply to provide a platform for the disclosure-centered settlement. In December 2014, Trulia's shareholders provided overwhelming support for the deal: 79.52% of the shares outstanding, and 99.15% of those that were voted, voted in favor. The deal closed in February 2015. This is, for Bouchard, a token of a type. He writes that his court's "willingness in the past to approve disclosure settlements of marginal value and to routinely grant broad releases to defendants and six-figure fees to plaintiffs' counsel in the process have caused deal litigation to explode in the United States beyond the realm of reason." Was the J.P Morgan data that became public as a consequence of this lawsuit of value to Trulia's stockholders in making up their minds how to vote? Chancellor Bouchard cited a 2002 decision in which the court found that when a board of directors relies on an advisor in making a decision that then requires shareholder approval, those shareholders are entitled to receive "a fair summary of the substantive work performed by the investment bankers." But the fair summary is still a summary. It need not involve all the information on which the investment bank, Morgan in this case, relied. Chancellor Bouchard found that "the supplemental disclosure may have added confusion more than anything else, because it lacks explanatory context and does not clearly describe the nature of management's estimate of synergies that was described in the original Proxy." * Data Breach Litigation Decisions Show Competing Trends -------------------------------------------------------- Devin Chwastyk, Esq. -- dchwastyk@mwn.com -- of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, in an article for Metroplitan Corporate Counsel, reports that new decisions from two federal courts may allow defendants in data breach class action litigation to breathe somewhat easier, following a run of adverse decisions last year. These decisions illustrate an emerging trend of district courts dismissing such privacy claims for lack of standing. Those decisions run directly counter to some court rulings last year that made it easier for plaintiffs to state a claim where their information has been compromised. These competing trends may bring data breach litigation to the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. Judicial decisions in 2015 brought plenty of bad news for companies that collect and store personally identifiable information of customers and employees. As noted in the November 2015 issue of Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, last year saw the Seventh Circuit rule that victims of data breaches may have their day in court even where they suffered no actual fraud losses as a result of their information being exposed. In that case against Neiman Marcus, the court found that efforts to prevent possible future fraud, such as credit monitoring, are sufficient as damages to provide plaintiffs with standing to sue. Perhaps equally as troubling from a defense perspective, the U.S. District Court for Minnesota last year certified a data breach class action for the first time. The court allowed financial institutions to proceed as a class against Target for losses incurred when hackers accessed payment card information belonging to millions of customers. Meanwhile, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals last year found that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had authority to bring enforcement actions against companies that are victims of hacking attacks, on the basis that corporate security failures amount to unfair and deceptive trade practices. The new year, however, opens with some cause for optimism for organizations threatened by the risk of data exposure litigation. Two recent federal court decisions illustrate a trend to dismiss cases where the individuals affected cannot show they suffered actual financial harm due to fraud on their accounts. The contrast of these two decisions with the pro-plaintiff rulings from last year may indicate potential for circuit split that would allow a data breach case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued one decision in favor of data breach defendants in the final days of 2015. In Whalen v. Michael [sic] Stores, Inc., the Michaels chain of arts and crafts stores had been sued after hackers used malware to retrieve customers' credit and debit card information from its systems. The complaint alleged that the class representative had experienced two attempted fraudulent charges to her credit card, but those transactions were not approved, and she cancelled her card thereafter. She further alleged damages in the form of lost time and money associated with credit monitoring and card replacement, and potential future harm arising from the continuing risk of identity theft once her information had been exposed to hackers. The Michaels court held that class plaintiffs lack standing when they assert only the potential risk of future harm. First, the court noted that Whalen had not suffered any unreimbursed charges to her accounts. Even if the attempted fraudulent transactions had been processed, the court noted, she would have been reimbursed under the zero-fraud liability terms set by card issuers. Next, the court rejected as cognizable damages the alleged loss of time and money associated with credit monitoring, holding that plaintiffs may not manufacture standing by their efforts to avoid potential future harm. In a direct departure from last year's analysis by the Seventh Circuit in Neiman Marcus, the New York court in Michael ruled that the risk of future identity theft is not sufficient to establish standing to sue. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's now familiar Clapper standard (which was announced in a case challenging government wiretaps), the court held such risk must be imminent and substantial rather than merely possible to allow a lawsuit to overcome a motion to dismiss. Likewise, the U.S. District Court for Minnesota (the same court that last year certified the Target class of financial institution plaintiffs) started 2016 by dismissing, for lack of standing, consumer claims against a retailer. In the SuperValu class action, 16 named plaintiffs brought claims alleging the grocer defendants had negligently failed to protect the plaintiffs' payment card information after hackers accessed the defendants' systems. The SuperValu decision, like the Michael ruling, dismissed the putative class action for lack of standing because none of the named class plaintiffs had alleged that they suffered actual fraud losses as a result of the breach. The court was especially troubled by the numerous variables upon which the plaintiffs' allegations of future harm rested, which included whether hackers indeed still had possession of the stolen personal information, and whether those hackers would in the future use the particular card data belonging to the named class plaintiffs. Of note, the SuperValu decision came from the same court that allowed the Target data breach litigation to proceed over motions to dismiss filed earlier in that case. The distinguishing factor appears to be the artful pleading of the plaintiffs' lawyers in Target, who suggested that actual fraud losses had occurred that may not have been remedied by the zero-fraud protection of consumers. In contrast, the complaint in SuperValu made clear that only one of the 16 plaintiffs had seen an actual fraudulent transaction on their payment card, and that transaction had been cancelled, so there had been no real financial injury to that plaintiff. Although the Target and Neiman Marcus decisions may provide adequate support for plaintiff's counsel to continue to bring class actions whenever a data breach becomes public, the Michael and SuperValu decisions are illustrative of a predominant trend: Most federal courts are dismissing such claims in the absence of actual fraud losses, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Clapper. At least a dozen district courts have dismissed putative data breach class actions for lack of actual injury since 2014. Privacy lawyers now await an appellate court ruling affirming this trend in the district courts. A federal circuit court decision that data breach claims cannot be maintained based on the threat of future fraud against the plaintiffs would stand in direct contrast to the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Neiman Marcus. This would set up a circuit split, which might lead to a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court then would be left to decide whether the reasoning of its Clapper decision has been properly applied in the context of data breach litigation, and perhaps, to decide whether data breach claims will have a future at all. ********* 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 2016. 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 * * *