/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160307.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 47 Headlines 694 ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Panton" Suit Says ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach ADECCO USA: Case Management Conference Moved to April 21 ADECCO USA: March 10 Hearing on Arbitration Bid in "Shepardson" ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Chester" Suit Moved from Minn. to N.D. W. Va. ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maximov" Suit Claims ALWAYS TRAVEL: Sued in Florida Over Public Offering Statement AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Macolino" Suit Moved to Columbia Dist. Ct. AMSPEC SERVICES: "Atanassov" Suit Tranaferred to S.D. Tex. ANDY ARVANS: Faces "Demarco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ANTHEM INC: "Roberts" Suit Moved from Minnesota to N.D. Cal. APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims in iPhone 4S Suit ARIZONA PUBLIC: 9th Cir. Declines to Revive Suit Over Blackout AWARD ENTERTAINMENT: "Rohlsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BENCO DENTAL: Faces Evolution Suit Over Dental Supply Monopoly BLUE CROSS: Faces "Goodman" Suit Over Market Allocation Agreement BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA: "Smith" Suit Moved to C.D. California BOULDER BRANDS: Oklahoma Police Pension Named as Lead Plaintiff BP PLC: Denial of Class Certification in Oil Spill Suit Upheld CENTRAL CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection COLLECTION SERVICE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moore" Suit Claims COMMUNITY BANK: Urban et al. Can't Intervene in "Brennan" Suit CONSOLIDATED TELECOM: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CONSUMER CREDIT: "Sahakian" Suit Moved to S.D. Cal. COUCH DISTRIBUTING: "Madrigal" Suit Moved to N.D. California CR BARD INC: "Bures" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2641 in Arizona CR BARD INC: "Ricker" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2641 in Arizona DATA SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "French" Suit Claims DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cohen" Suit Claims EAGLE ATLANTIC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act EARLY WARNING: "Muir" Suit Seeks Damages Under FCRA EAST COMMUNICATION: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT EDWARD YASKOWITZ: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims EXPRESS ENERGY: "Cornell" Labor Suit Moved to S.D. Tex. Court FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Minn. Court Dismisses "Zean" TCPA Suit FAMA ENTERTAINMENT: "Butler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT FARMERS SERVICES: $600,000 Settlement in "Ribot" Has Final OK FIRST TENNESSEE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tyacke" Suit Claims FISHER PRINTING: "Diaz" Suit Moved from Super. Ct.to C.D. Cal. FLORIDA INSURANCE: "Merced" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FLUIDMASTER INC: "Smith" Suit Moved, Consolidated in MDL 2575 FRITO-LAY INC: Pretrial Conf., Trial Date in "Sanchez" Pushed Back GALLAGHER BASSETT: Sued Over Failure to Issue Settlement Check GHANSHAYAM ENTERPRISE: "Abbas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay GARDA CL: Faces "D'Aguino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GENERAL CHEMICAL: Fresno Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation GJI INC: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Girard Keese Loses Avandia MDL Fee Bid GOLDEN STATE FC: "Parson" Labor Suit Moved to N. D. California GOOGLE INC: Faces "Ha" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GOTCHA FLOWBACK: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages GREATER OMAHA PACKING: "Baglio" Suit to Recover OT, Missed Breaks HOME HEALTH: "Jasper" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ivy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT JC CHRISTENSEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection KHANNA ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations KOBE GRILL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lin" Suit Claims LANDRY'S INC: "Craig" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips LPC TRANSPORTATION: "Riley" Suit Seeks to Recovery Unpaid OT LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Ct. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: E.D. La. Has Jurisdiction of "Loehn" Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: July 19 Final Approval Hrng in "Chavez" Suit LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Ct. MARYLAND CASUALTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims MCCORMICK & CO: "Gerstnecker" Suit Transferred to Wash. D.C. MDL 1827: Rust Consulting to Be Paid 74,000 METLIFE: "Martin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. California MITCHELL CELAYA: 9th Cir. Rejects UC Berkeley Protesters' Claim MKTG4U LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, California Suit Claims MONETARY MANAGEMENT: April 21 Fairness Hearing Set in "Rodas" MRS BPO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Saroza" Action Claims NEW JERSEY: "Slaughter" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action NWP SERVICES: "Brown" Suit Moved from Judicial Ct. to M.D. Fla. OPORTUN INC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA PERFORMANT RECOVERY: "McPherson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation POINT LOMA CREDIT: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to S.D. California PROSPECT FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims PROVIDENT FUNDING: Dismissal Bid Reply in "Steinberg" Due Mar 18 RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SALES RAIN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mills" Suit Claims SALINAS CA: Injunction Bid Over Ordinance 2564 Denied SANJEL (USA): "Keller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SCOTT ROTHSTEIN: Gibraltar Bank Fined Over Role in Ponzi Scheme SCRIPPS NP OPERATING: "Fogarty" Suit Moved to C.D. California SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Granted SECURITY NATIONAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. SMART UTILITY: "Marinucci" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hamra" Suit Claims STANFORD: Chadbourne & Parke Agrees to Settle Ponzi Scheme Claims SYNENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims TF FINAL: "Gates" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TRICAN WELL: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Reimbursement VIGILANT CANINE: Sued Over Failure to Timely Pay Separation Pay WAL-MART: No Spoliation of Evidence in Crib Death Suit WAL-MART STORES: Must Produce Docs to PGERS, Court Says WEST VIRGINIA: Detainees' Class Certification Bid Denied WONDERFUL CITRUS: Court Trims Claims in "Peralta" Complaint XBIOTECH INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Named Lead Counsel in "Tran" Suit * Judges Split Over FLSA, NYLL Liquidated Damages Issue ********* 694 ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Panton" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Panton, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jacob Ben Moha, 694 Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Roxy Diner, Case No. 1:16-cv-00880 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate Roxy Diner restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lizabeth Schalet, Esq. MIRER MAZZOCCHI SCHALET & JULIEN, PLLC 150 Broadway, Suite 1200 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 231-2235 E-mail: Lschalet@mmsjlaw.com ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Evans, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Accurate Background, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00188 (C.D. Cal., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accurate Background, LLC is a provider of comprehensive employee screening and human resource support services. Donald Evans is a pro se plaintiff. ADECCO USA: Case Management Conference Moved to April 21 -------------------------------------------------------- The Case Management Conference scheduled for March 3, 2016, in the case, KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADECCO USA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), has been continued and set to take place on April 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m./p.m. Joint CMC statement is due April 14, 2016, according to District Judge Edward M. Chen in a March 1, 2016 Stipulation and Order available at http://is.gd/l3r3QMfrom Leagle.com. Kaitlyn Shepardson is represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. Michael C. Righetti, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 456 Montgomery St Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-983-0900 Adecco USA, Inc., is represented by: Julie Erin Patterson, Esq. Julie Westcott O'Dell, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92612-4414 Tel: 949 223-7144 E-mail: jepatterson@bryancave.com julie.odell@bryancave.com ADECCO USA: March 10 Hearing on Arbitration Bid in "Shepardson" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADECCO USA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Adecco filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on February 2, 2016, seeking an order from the Court to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims and to stay litigation pending the completion of arbitration. The hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration is scheduled for March 10, 2016. ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Chester" Suit Moved from Minn. to N.D. W. Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Chester v. Alliance Security Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-04231, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Clarksburg). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00010-IMK-MJA to the proceeding. Alliance Security provides security services. The Company provides burglar, fire, and medical protection, as well as provides home automation services. The Company is based in Warwick, Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Patrick J Helwig, Esq. Peter F Barry, Esq. BARRY & HELWIG, LLC 2701 University Avenue SE, Suite 209 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 379 8800 Facsimile: (612) 379 8810 E-mail: phelwig@lawpoint.com pbarry@lawpoint.com The Defendant is represented by: Barbara P Berens, Esq. Erin K Fogarty Lisle, Esq. BERENS & MILLER, PA 80 S 8th St Ste 3720 Mpls, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349 6171 Facsimile: (612) 349 6416 E-mail: bberens@berensmiller.com elisle@berensmiller.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maximov" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Maximov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00561-MKB-MDG (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Allied Interstate LLC operates a collection agency that is attempting to collect a debt. The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B. Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Ave P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796-4905 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com ALWAYS TRAVEL: Sued in Florida Over Public Offering Statement ------------------------------------------------------------- Diane M. DeGeorge and Michael K. DeGeorge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Always Travel With Us, Inc. d/b/a Vacation Village Voyages, Case No. 37056616 (Fla. 17th Ct., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to submit a public offering statement for the Vacation Club to the Division for approval. Always Travel With Us, Inc. owns and operates a travel agency located at 3015 N Ocean Blvd # 119, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared H. Beck, Esq. Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq. BECK & LEE TRAIL LAWYERS Corporate Park at Kendall 12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205 Miami, FL 33186 Telephone: (305) 234-2060 Facsimile: (786) 664-3334 E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com elizabeth@beckandlee.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Macolino" Suit Moved to Columbia Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Macolino v. American Airlines Group Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-08494, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00132- CKK to the proceeding. The antitrust class action arose out of an alleged conspiracy among the Defendants to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States. Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per day to 339 locations in 54 countries. Southwest Airlines is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries. United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six continents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Clark, Esq. William Peck, Esq. Mark Morris, Esq. CLARK LAW FIRM, PC 811 Sixteenth Avenue Belmar, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 443 0333 Facsimile: (732) 894 9647 - and - Allan Kanner, Esq. Cynthia St. Amant, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524 5777 Facsimile: (504) 524 5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.stamant@kanner-law.com AMSPEC SERVICES: "Atanassov" Suit Tranaferred to S.D. Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JIVKO ATANASSOV, et al., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMSPEC SERVICES, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-3628 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.), Judge Freda L. Wolfson denied Amspec Services, LLC's motion to dismiss under the first-filed rule, but transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). On May 29, 2015, a collective-action lawsuit was filed against Amspec in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of Amspec's inspectors, alleging violations of the overtime and anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). On July 24, 2015, Amspec moved to dismiss based on the first-filed rule or, in the alternative, to transfer the matter to the Southern District of Texas. Judge Wolfson held that the first-filed rule does not apply because the prior Texas action and the present New Jersey action are not "truly duplicative." Unlike the New Jersey action, the Texas action asserted claims against Amspec on behalf of inspectors and dispatchers for failure to pay overtime and failure to pay the minimum wage. However, Judge Wolfson granted the motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas upon finding that both public and private interests and the interests of justice weigh in favor of the transfer. A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's February 24, 2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/LPHvRxfrom Leagle.com. JIVKO ATANASSOV, Plaintiff, represented by PATRICIA A. BARASCH, SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC & RICHARD M. SCHALL, SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC. AMSPEC SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by PATRICK W. MCGOVERN -- pmcgovern@genovaburns.com -- GENOVA BURNS LLC & ANGELO JOSEPH GENOVA -- agenova@genovaburns.com -- Genova Burns LLC. ANDY ARVANS: Faces "Demarco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Marie Demarco and Lauren Bohn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Andy Arvans Restaurant Corp., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00543 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Andy Arvans Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a restaurant located at 100 Broadhollow Rd in Melville, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Kaske, Esq. Marijana F. Matura, Esq. Troy L. Kessler, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: gkaske@shulmankessler.com mm@shulmankessler.com tk@shulmankessler.com ANTHEM INC: "Roberts" Suit Moved from Minnesota to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Roberts et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04592, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The Calif. Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv- 00339-LHK to the proceeding. Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health benefits company in the United States. It operates through three segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business, and Other. The company offers a spectrum of network-based managed care health benefit plans to large and small employer, individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets. The Company is headquartered at Indianapolis, Indiana. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN 100 Washington Avenue, S, Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims in iPhone 4S Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In re: IPHONE 4S CONSUMER LITIGATION, FRANK M. FAZIO; CARLISA S. HAMAGAKI; DANIEL M. BALASONNE; BENJAMIN SWARTZMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLE, INC., a California Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Apple's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims. An amended consolidated class action complaint was filed alleging that Apple's advertising campaign misrepresented the functionality of the Siri feature of the iPhone 4S and deceived customers. The district court held that the complaint failed to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and failed to plead plausible claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). On appeal, the 9th Circuit held that merely pointing to product demonstrations of Siri in Apple's general advertising campaign, without defining what level of consistency was expected from these representations and how often Siri actually performed as requested, is insufficient to show that Apple fraudulently misled the plaintiffs into believing Siri would perform consistently. The 9th Circuit thus concluded that the district court did not err in holding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Further, the 9th Circuit also agreed with the district court in holding that the complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). The appellate court explained that because the plaintiffs did not articulate what level of consistent performance Apple fraudulently represented, they similarly failed to define the level of consistency a reasonable consumer would expect. A full-text copy of the 9th Circuit's February 25, 2016 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/q202tzfrom Leagle.com. ARIZONA PUBLIC: 9th Cir. Declines to Revive Suit Over Blackout -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of "[a]ll individuals and business entities located within the State[] of California who incurred economic damages" from a 2011 blackout that started in Arizona and spread to parts of California and Mexico. They alleged that Arizona Public Service Company, an Arizona-based electric utility, violated federal electricity- reliability standards, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 824o, which caused the ensuing cascading blackout, and that APS is thus negligent per se under Arizona law. The district court determined that California law, not Arizona law, applied and dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under California law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a March 2 Memorandum, saying plaintiffs did not state a claim under either California law or Arizona law, and that the district court correctly concluded that amendment of the plaintiffs' complaint would be futile, as neither state's law provides for tort liability under the circumstances of this case. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision is available at http://is.gd/Vkcxzbfrom Leagle.com. The appellate case is, ROBERT WALDON, an individual, and SIR WALDON, INC., a California Business Entity, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA Oggi's Pizza, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-55076 (9th Cir.). AWARD ENTERTAINMENT: "Rohlsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexa Rohlsen, and all others similarly-situated v. Award Entertainment, Inc. dba Baby Dolls, Case No. 8:16-cv-00236 (M.D. Fla., January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant operates a strip club in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. John Gadd, Esq. Bank of America Building 2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250 Clearwater, FL 33762 Tel: (727) 524-6300 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com BENCO DENTAL: Faces Evolution Suit Over Dental Supply Monopoly -------------------------------------------------------------- Evolution Dental Science, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein, Inc., and Patterson Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00596 (E.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to monopolize the Dental Supplies market in the United States through group boycotting. The Defendants are the three principal providers of dental supplies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Brent W. Landau, Esq. Gary I. Smith Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 325 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 Facsimile: (215) 985-3271 E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202)-540-7200 Facsimile: (202)-540-7201 E-mail: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. Robert C. Singer, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building, 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 Facsimile: (716) 332-0336 E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com cercone@ruppbaase.com singer@ruppbaase.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Goodman" Suit Over Market Allocation Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom A. Goodman and Jason Goodman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, Case No. 4:16-cv-00007-BMM (D. Mont., February 4, 2016), is an action for damages as result of anticompetitive conduct the Defendants have taken in their illegal efforts to establish and maintain monopoly power through market allocation agreements between and among BCBS-MT, the Individual Blue Plans, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA). Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance plan operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in the state of Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Monte D. Beck, Esq. Anthony F. Jackson, Esq. BECK & AMSDEN, PLLC 1946 Stadium Dr., Ste. 1 Bozeman, MT 59715 BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA: "Smith" Suit Moved to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Shannon Smith v. Blue Shield of California Life and Health Insurance Company et al., Case No. 30- 02015-00826278-CU-MC-CXC, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00108-CJC-KES to the proceeding. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company provides group and individual term life, accidental death and dismemberment, vision, and stop loss insurance products in California. The company offers group term life, group vision, individual short-term health, disability, and individual term life insurance products. The Company is based in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: James T Hannink, Esq. Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 623 4200 Facsimile: (858) 623 4299 E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com zdostart@sdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles L Sweeris, Esq. 50 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 229 5107 Facsimile: (415) 229 5343 - and - Jay T Ramsey, Esq. Valerie Elizabeth Alter, Esq. Fred R Puglisi, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: (310) 228 3700 Facsimile: (310) 228 3701 E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com valter@sheppardmullin.com fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com BOULDER BRANDS: Oklahoma Police Pension Named as Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Marcia S. Krieger granted the request of the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System to consolidate these two cases: -- Ronald LoRusso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boulder Brands, Inc.; Stephen B. Hughes; James B. Leighton; and Christine Sacco, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-00679-MSK-KMT (D. Colo.), and -- Insider Asset Management, LLC v. Boulder Brands, Inc., D.C. Colo. Civ. Case No. 15-cv-01043-CBS. The Court also appointed OPPRS as Lead Plaintiff and directed it to file a consolidated complaint. The Court declined to affirmatively appoint or approve any particular "lead counsel," but said OPPRS is entitled to select, retain, and, if appropriate, terminate counsel qualified to litigate this case. This is a securities class action brought by shareholders of Defendant Boulder Brands, Inc. alleging that the Company and its officers made material misrepresentations about its anticipated earnings and related matters in 2014. Mr. LoRusso, a shareholder, commenced this action alleging securities fraud and control person claims under the Securities Act of 1934. Separately, a shareholder named Insider Asset Management, LLC, commenced another action in this Court, making essentially the same allegations against the same Defendants. No party or other person opposes OPPRS' motion. Donna Johnson, another shareholder, also moved to consolidate the two cases and to have herself appointed Lead Plaintiff. Ms. Johnson's motion was denied on procedural grounds, and Ms. Johnson did not refile it. Thereafter, Ms. Johnson indicated that she does not oppose OPPRS' motion. A copy of the Court's March 2 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/GWebb9from Leagle.com. Insider Asset Management, LLC, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Kip Brian Shuman, The Shuman Law Firm. Boulder Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jordan D. Eth, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Nicole K. Serfoss, Morrison & Foerster, LLP & Steven M. Kaufmann, Morrison & Foerster, LLP. Stephen B. Hughes, Defendant, represented by Jordan D. Eth, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Nicole K. Serfoss, Morrison & Foerster, LLP & Steven M. Kaufmann, Morrison & Foerster, LLP. James B. Leighton, Defendant, represented by Jordan D. Eth, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Nicole K. Serfoss, Morrison & Foerster, LLP & Steven M. Kaufmann, Morrison & Foerster, LLP. Christine Sacco, Defendant, represented by Jordan D. Eth, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Nicole K. Serfoss, Morrison & Foerster, LLP & Steven M. Kaufmann, Morrison & Foerster, LLP. Donna Johnson, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP & Robert Jeffrey Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP. BP PLC: Denial of Class Certification in Oil Spill Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert L. Hickok and Gay Parks Rainville, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, report that last fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court order denying class certification to a group of BP plc shareholders in the securities litigation, Ludlow v. BP plc, 800 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2015). The proposed class of investors purchased BP securities before the April 20, 2010, catastrophic blowout of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that resulted in more than 5 million barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. These "pre-spill" investors alleged that, for several years before the spill, BP, which had leased the rig and co-owned the well site where the explosion occurred, made material misrepresentations overstating the strength of BP's safety processes and procedures and understating the risk of catastrophe in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit held that the pre- spill plaintiffs failed to satisfy the U.S. Supreme Court's "common damages burden," recently set forth in an antitrust case, Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). Under Comcast, a plaintiff seeking class certification must present a damages methodology that is both consistent with the plaintiff's theory of liability and capable of measuring damages across the entire proposed class. (The district court certified, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, a "post-spill" class of investors who alleged that BP misrepresented the company's internal estimates of the flow rate of the oil spill, which lasted 87 days. Those decisions are beyond the scope of this article.) The Fifth Circuit denied the pre-spill plaintiffs a rehearing en banc. On Jan. 25, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking that the U.S. Supreme Court determine whether Comcast's common damages burden applies to securities fraud class actions invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption and to "clarify the scope of inquiry into the merits of a damage model at class certification." The Fifth Circuit's Decision As described in the Fifth Circuit's opinion, the pre-spill plaintiffs claimed that, prior to the spill, BP made statements "suggesting that [it] had made safety and process improvements that [it] had not actually implemented," and that such assurances "lulled the market into believing that BP was a safer company than it actually was." Relying on a "materialization-of-the-risk" damages theory, the plaintiffs alleged that "BP had understated the risk of catastrophe, and when that risk materialized, [the plaintiffs] could recover its resulting damages." The plaintiffs argued that "the economic effects of the spill, as captured by the fall in BP's stock price after the spill occurred, were the 'foreseeable consequences of the materialized misstated risk.'" Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought recovery of "the entire fall in stock price caused by materialization of the risk of the spill." Because the parties did not dispute that the proposed pre-spill class met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for class certification, the court focused only on Rule 23(b)(3), which requires "that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Specifically, the court assessed whether, as required under Comcast, the plaintiffs' damages methodology was "'susceptible of measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3).'" The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the plaintiffs' damages model was not capable of classwide measurement. As the court explained: "[Plaintiffs'] theory hinges on a determination that each plaintiff would not have bought BP stock at all were it not for the alleged misrepresentations - a determination not derivable as a common question, but rather one requiring individualized inquiry." The court illustrated its reasoning with a comparison between two hypothetical investors: a low-risk pension fund that does not invest in companies where the risk of a catastrophic event is greater than 1 percent, and a high-risk fund whose risk threshold is over 2 percent. In the court's hypothetical, the low-risk fund "would not have bought BP stock at all had it known the true risk of catastrophe. This is the type of plaintiff the materialization- of-the-risk theory is designed to compensate." The high-risk fund, however, "still might have purchased the stock, even had it known the 'true' risk, though presumably at a lower price that accounted for the increased risk." Importantly, "for the second type of plaintiff, full materialization-of-the- risk damages would prove a windfall." And because the plaintiffs' damages methodology "did not provide any mechanism for separating these two classes of plaintiffs," the court concluded that the model "cannot provide an adequate measure of class-wide damages under Comcast." In reaching this decision, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that, because they had met their burden of establishing a fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance allowed underBasic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), they were entitled to a presumption that BP's alleged misrepresentations were a cause-in-fact of their losses. As the court explained: "The fraud-on-the-market theory does not provide any presumptions with regard to loss causation. . . . And here, where the economic loss depends on the posture of the plaintiff vis-Ö-vis risk tolerance, that loss causation, and thus damage, cannot be presumed nor can it be found class-wide." Indeed, as the court further opined, the plaintiffs' own damages model, which asserted that the plaintiffs "relied on something other than price: risk" -may have, in effect, rebutted the fraud- on-the-market presumption. Plaintiffs' Petition For Supreme Court Review In their petition, the plaintiffs ask that the Supreme Court review the following questions presented: "1. Whether a classwide flaw in a damage model defeats predominance and precludes class certification under Comcast v. Behrend when damages are nonetheless capable of measurement on a classwide basis. 2. Whether Comcast applies to securities fraud class actions invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption." The plaintiffs argue in their petition that the Fifth Circuit inappropriately examined the merits of their proposed damages model and that such approach was "particularly erroneous" in this case since the plaintiffs had invoked the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance allowed under Basic. According to the plaintiffs: "When the Basic presumption applies, damages will always be formulaic. Using the wrong formula at the class certification stage does not undermine the truth that a correct, classwide formula exists." The plaintiffs further contend that, by focusing on the correctness of their damages model, the Fifth Circuit improperly "reintroduce[d] questions of loss causation into class certification." As their petition explains: "One cannot evaluate the correctness of a damage model without evaluating what losses were caused by the defendant. For this reason, reading Comcast to require examination of a classwide damage model invites courts to evaluate loss causation at the stage of class certification." The plaintiffs acknowledge in their petition that the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of Comcast as imposing a "common damages burden" on all parties seeking class certification joins the D.C. Circuit's decision in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869, 725 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding that Comcast requires proof of injury on a classwide basis before certification). But they also point out that the Third, Sixth and Seventh circuits have declined to apply the Comcast standard in non-antitrust cases. None of those decisions involved securities fraud claims, however. Moreover, the Third Circuit cited an earlier Fifth Circuit class certification opinion, In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 815 & n.104 (5th Cir. 2014), in support of its decision not to apply the Comcast standard in Neale v. Volvo Cars of North America LLC, 794 F.3d 353, 374-75 (3d Cir. 2015), which involved consumer claims against Volvo for a uniform design defect. As the Fifth Circuit itself explained in Ludlow, its prior decision in Deepwater Horizon, a nonsecurities case, "applies only to classes where predominance was based on the commonality of liability, not, as here, liability and damages, where we ask whether in operation the commonality is undone by the damages theory." Unless and until the Supreme Court decides the questions presented by the plaintiffs' petition in Ludlow, lower courts will continue to grapple with whether the Comcast common damages burden applies in securities fraud cases. Given this current state of uncertainty, plaintiffs should be prepared to present at the class certification stage a damages model that meets the Comcast standard. CENTRAL CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jona Feder, Hanna Feder, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers v. Central Credit Services LLC f/k/a Veldos, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00549 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Central Credit Services LLC is a provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and revenue cycle management solutions. 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 COLLECTION SERVICE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moore" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael G. Moore, an individual obo himself and all others similarly situated v. Collection Service of Nevada, Inc. d/b/a CSN, Case No. 3:16-cv-00049-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev., February 2, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Collection Service of Nevada, Inc. is a licensed and bonded collection agency in Reno, Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. 1212 SE 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (954) 763-8607 - and - Michael C. Lehners, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL LEHNERS 429 Marsh Ave Reno, NV 89509 Telephone: (775) 786-1695 Facsimile: (775) 786-0799 E-mail: michaellehners@yahoo.com COMMUNITY BANK: Urban et al. Can't Intervene in "Brennan" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CAROL A. BRENNAN, ANTHONY COLINO, and COURTNEY BELLAMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:13-2939 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion denied a motion to intervene submitted on behalf of Nicole Urban, Eleanor Sickler, Jacob Laird, and Donald Lenherr. A class action was commenced against Community Bank, N.A. relating to alleged deficiencies in notices that the bank provided to borrowers whose vehicles were repossessed after default. On September 12, 2015, after the court granted preliminary approval of an amended class action settlement, Urban filed a motion to intervene on her and the other intervenors' behalf, because they believe the plaintiffs are entering into "an unfavorable settlement" and that intervention would allow them "to better protect their interests," by allowing them to engage in discovery and file motions with the court. Judge Mannion held that the Intervenors cannot intervene either as a matter of right or by permissive intervention. The judge found that Intervenors' motion to be untimely and their delay in filing unjustified, considering that the Intervenors have been aware of the action and had the ability to file a motion for intervention for over a year already. Judge Mannion explained that "Granting intervention in this case will add additional unnecessary complexities that would prolong and delay the resolution of the case." Further, Judge Mannion found that each of the deficiencies noted by the Intervenors is simply an objection to a provision or element of the settlement agreement which cannot provide a basis for granting intervention as of right. The judge went on to state that the Intervenors' concerns can be voiced before the court during the final approval hearing and may be appealed to the Third Circuit if the settlement is approved. A full-text copy of Judge Mannion's February 24, 2016 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/0iUMJzfrom Leagle.com. Carol A. Brennan, represented by Cary L. Flitter, Flitter Milz, P.C..,M. Scott Barrett, Barrett Wylie, LLC, Theodore E. Lorenz, Flitter Lorenz, P.C.,Andrew M. Milz, Flitter Milz, P.C. & Timothy P. Polishan -- tpolishan@kpwslaw.com -- Kelley, Polishan & Solfanelli, LLC. Anthony Colino, Courtney Bellomo, represented by Cary L. Flitter, Flitter Milz, P.C..,Eugene C. Kelley, Kelley, Polishan & Solfanelli, LLC, M. Scott Barrett, Barrett Wylie, LLC & Timothy P. Polishan, Kelley, Polishan & Solfanelli, LLC. Community Bank, N.A., represented by Jane T. Smedley -- jsmedley@hkqlaw.com -- Hourigan Kluger & Quinn, PC, Jonathan B. Fellows -- jfellows@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, LLP,Joseph E. Kluger -- jkluger@hkqlaw.com -- Hourigan, Kluger, and Quinn, P.C. & Suzanne O. Galbato -- sgalbato@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC. Nicole Urban, represented by Howard A. Rothenberg, Herlands Rothenberg & Levine & Richard Shenkan, Shenkan Injury Lawyers LLC. CONSOLIDATED TELECOM: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Earl Hicks v. Consolidated Telecom Services, Inc., Case No. 4:16- cv-00363 (S.D. Tex., February 10, 2016) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees employed by the Defendant. Consolidated Telecom Services, Inc., is a telecom Texas corporation that employed the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com CONSUMER CREDIT: "Sahakian" Suit Moved to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sahakian v. Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta, Inc. et al., Case No. 37- 02015-00042715-CU, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00219-BTM-JMA to the proceeding. Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta provides budget, debt, and housing advice services through phone, Internet, and via face-to-face counseling. It offers bankruptcy education, housing program, budget and credit counseling, debt management program, student loan counseling, education seminar, and military reconnect, as well as Checkwise, a program that helps prepare young consumers, underbanked populations, or those who are rehabilitating their credit for the responsibility of managing a checking account. The company was founded in 1964 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia with branch office locations in Fresno, Glendale, Granada Hills, Lakewood, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. The Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta, Inc. is doing business as ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions a Georgia Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 623 4200 Facsimile: (858) 623 4299 E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Chad R. Fuller, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP-CA 11682 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130, Suite 400 Telephone: (858) 509 6056 Facsimile: (858) 509 6040 E-mail: chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com COUCH DISTRIBUTING: "Madrigal" Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Madrigal, et al. v. Couch Distributing Company, Inc., Case No. 15CV00439, was removed from the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00401-NC to the proceeding. Couch Distributing Company, a California corporation, distributes beverage. It offers beer, ale, porter, and other malt beverages. Couch Distributing Company serves customers in the United States. The Company is based in Watsonville, California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 2500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 7502 Facsimile: (818) 230 7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com The Defendant is represented by: Fraser Angus McAlpine, Esq. Stephanie TaiHsin Yang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394 9400 Facsimile: (415) 394 9401 E-mail: fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com stephanie.yang@jacksonlewis.com CR BARD INC: "Bures" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2641 in Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Bures v. C R Bard Incorporated et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02420, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00137-DGC to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' claims for damages all relate to Bard's design, manufacture, sale, testing, marketing, labeling, advertising, promotion, and/or distribution of Bard IVC Filters. C. R. Bard, Inc. designs, manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices. The Company sells a broad range of products worldwide to hospitals, individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities and alternate site facilities. Bard markets vascular, urological, oncological, and surgical specialties products. The Company is based in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The Bures case is being consolidated with MDL 2641 in re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on September 17, 2015. All actions involve common factual questions arising from allegations that defects in the design of Bard's retrievable inferior vena cava filters ("IVC filters") make them more likely to fracture, migrate, tilt, or perforate the inferior vena cava, causing injury. In its September 17, 2015, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Arizona will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. At oral argument, plaintiffs argued that they will seek to reopen discovery in all cases to seek information relating to a recent warning letter issued to Bard by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while Bard argued that the letter is largely irrelevant to the pending actions and that it will produce its communications with the FDA. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. David G. Campbell, United States District Judge. The lead case is Lead case: 2:15-md-02641-DGC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie R Capouellez, Esq. Michael S Katz, Esq. LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP - PHILADELPHIA, PA 1123 Admiral Peary Way, Philadelphia, PA 19112 Telephone: (215) 952 6910 E-mail: ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com CR BARD INC: "Ricker" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2641 in Arizona -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ricker v. C R Bard Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02453, was transferred from the the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00130-DGC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brought this suit for personal injuries damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of being implanted with a defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava ("IVC") filter medical device manufactured by Bard. C. R. Bard, Inc. designs, manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices. The Company sells a broad range of products worldwide to hospitals, individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities and alternate site facilities. Bard markets vascular, urological, oncological, and surgical specialties products. The Company is based in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The Ricker case is being consolidated with MDL 2641 in re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on September 17, 2015. All actions involve common factual questions arising from allegations that defects in the design of Bard's retrievable inferior vena cava filters ("IVC filters") make them more likely to fracture, migrate, tilt, or perforate the inferior vena cava, causing injury. In its September 17, 2015, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Arizona will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. At oral argument, plaintiffs argued that they will seek to reopen discovery in all cases to seek information relating to a recent warning letter issued to Bard by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while Bard argued that the letter is largely irrelevant to the pending actions and that it will produce its communications with the FDA. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. David G. Campbell, United States District Judge. The lead case is Lead case: 2:15-md-02641-DGC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie R Capouellez, Esq. Michael S Katz, Esq. LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP - PHILADELPHIA, PA 1123 Admiral Peary Way, Philadelphia, PA 19112 Telephone: (215) 952 6910 E-mail: ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com DATA SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "French" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Norene French, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Data Software Services, LLC d/b/a Elead1one, et al., Case No. 7:16-cv-00870 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendants practice of making unsolicited calls. Data Software Services, LLC operates a computer programming and IT consulting in New York. Norene French is a pro se plaintiff. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cohen" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- David Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv- 00576-AET-DEA (D.N.J., February 2, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Dynamic Recovery Solutions operates a full service debt collection agency in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com EAGLE ATLANTIC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Aldana, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Eagle Atlantic Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00038-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va., January 12, 2016) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Eagle Atlantic Financial Services is a financial advisory firm in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 4084 University Drive, Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-1067 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com EARLY WARNING: "Muir" Suit Seeks Damages Under FCRA --------------------------------------------------- Steve-Ann Muir, and all others Similarly-situated v. Early Warning Services, LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Bank of America, National Association, First Advantage Background Services Corp., and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00521 (D.N.J., January 29, 2016), seeks statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Sherman Antitrust Act. Early Warning Services, LLC is a joint venture owned by the following entities, or their affiliates: Bank of America Corporation; Wells Fargo & Company; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; BB&T Corporation; and Capital One Financial Corporation. EWS is a consumer reporting agency. First Advantage Background Services Corp. is a consumer reporting agency. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association, with its principal offices located at 101 N. Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 57104. Wells Fargo is the principal subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company. Bank of America, National Association is a nationally chartered banking association, with its principal offices located at 100 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28202. Bank of America is a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN , LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue - Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 E-mail: ari@MarcusZelman.com - and - Gabriel Posner, Esq. POSNER LAW PLLC 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1203 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (646) 546-5022 E-mail: gabe@PosnerLawPLLC.com EAST COMMUNICATION: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Ely Medina, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. East Communication Inc. d/b/a East Communication Inc., James Park, and Luis G. Yo, Case No. 1:16-cv-00869-CM (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own, operate, and control a mobile phone store located at 1452 East Avenue, Bronx, New York 10462 under the name "East Communication Inc." The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com EDWARD YASKOWITZ: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Klayko, Betsi Pittman, Sarah Bartes, Nicole Vlaiku, and Khyli Roberts, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Edward Yaskowitz, Wingit, LLC, and ECY, Inc., d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings, Case No. 1:16-cv-00268 (N.D. Ohio, February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated tipped employees all earned minimum wages. The Defendants own and operate franchised Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Floweree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com EXPRESS ENERGY: "Cornell" Labor Suit Moved to S.D. Tex. Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Cornell et al v. Express Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01261, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00191 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought the class action to recover all back wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act, North Dakota Century Code, and North Dakota Minimum Wage and Work Conditions Order. Express Energy Services is a diversified oilfield services company. The Company provides wellsite services that include well testing, plug and abandonment, coil tubing, snubbing, cranes, fluid hauling and frac tanks, thru-tubing motors, H2S safety equipment and services, pressure testing, pump trucks and water transfer. The Company is based in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766 1455 Facsimile: (412) 766 0300 - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. Michael A Josephson, Esq. Richard J Burch, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751 0025 Facsimile: (713) 751 0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher K. Ramsey, Esq. Stefanie R Moll, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS 301 Grant Street One Oxford Centre, Suite 3200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401 Telephone: (412) 560 3300 E-mail: smoll@morganlewis.com - and - Michael Patrick Jones, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1000 Louisiana St, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 890 5116 Facsimile: (713) 890 5001 E-mail: michael.jones@morganlewis.com FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Minn. Court Dismisses "Zean" TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Samuel Zean, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fairview Health Services d/b/a Fairview Home Medical Equipment, Defendant, Civ. No. 15-3217 (PAM/HB) (D. Minn.), Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted Fairview Health Services' motion to dismiss Samuel Zean's claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Zean brought the putative class action on behalf of all persons "who received one or more unauthorized automated or pre-recorded phone calls or voicemail messages from or on behalf of Fairview or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates." Fairview argued that the calls were not "telemarketing" calls, and that if they were, Zean authorized the calls by signing a written consent form and by providing a cellular telephone number as the number where he could be reached. Judge Magnuson determined that Zean gave Fairview his cellular phone number when he wrote it on the questionnaire and that Zean signed a consent form authorizing Fairview to contact him in regard to his services and accounts. As such, the judge concluded that Zean consented to receiving cellular phone calls from Fairview in relation to his purchase of medical equipment. Judge Magnuson thus held that Zean failed to establish a prima facie TCPA claim. A full-text copy of Judge Magnuson's February 24, 2016 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/6Iocelfrom Leagle.com. Samuel Zean, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D Jozwiak, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, Patricia A Bloodgood, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP & Shawn J Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP. Fairview Health Services, Defendant, represented by Bryant D Tchida -- bryant.tchida@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Todd A Noteboom -- todd.noteboom@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Calvin P Hoffman -- calvin.hoffman@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP. FAMA ENTERTAINMENT: "Butler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Harold W. Butler, Germaine Brisbane, and all others Similarly- situated v. Fama Entertainment LLC, dba Boone’s Bar, and Ahmed F. Hassan, Case No. 2:16-cv-00293 (D.S.C., January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Boone's Bar restaurant, which serves alcohol beverages along with burgers, wings, salads and appetizers in Charleston, South Carolina. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW, LLC 321 Wingo Way Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Tel: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net FARMERS SERVICES: $600,000 Settlement in "Ribot" Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DAVID RIBOT, PERRY HALL, JR., DEBORAH MILLS, ANTHONY BUTLER, JENNIFER BUTLER, Assigned to JONATHAN LUNA, RITA DUNKEN, and LOIS BARNES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS SERVICES, LLC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants, Case No. 2:11-cv-02404-DDP-JCx (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson granted the motion filed by plaintiffs for final approval of a class and collective action settlement, as well as their motion for attorney's fee, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards to the lead plaintiffs. Both motions were unopposed. Judge Pregerson found that the terms and conditions contained in the Class Action Settlement Agreement, which provided for a settlement amount of $600,000, are fair, reasonable, and adequate. The judge also found that the notice sent to all class members was valid, due, sufficient, and fully complied with applicable law. Judge Pregerson also approved the class counsel's requested fees award of $200,000, the class counsel's request for recovery of $146,000 in actual costs and expenses, the payment of the total incentive award of $24,000 with $3,000 payable to each of the lead plaintiffs, the payment of $29,986 to Rust Consulting as the appointed Settlement Administrator, and the distribution of the settlement payments to class members in the manner specified in the settlement. A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's February 23, 2016 order and judgment is available at http://is.gd/5e3IBIfrom Leagle.com. David Ribot, Perry Hall, Jr, Deborah Mills, Anthony Butler, Jennifer Butler, Jonathan Luna, Lois Barnes, Plaintiffs, represented by Chandra Holmes Ray, Zelbst Holmes and Butler, John D Sloan, Jr., Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry Law Firm, John P Zelbst, Zelbst Holmes and Butler, Joseph H Low, IV, Law Firm of Joseph H Low IV, Justin A Smith, Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry Law Firm & Laureen Bagley, Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry. Rita Dunken, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H Low, IV, Law Firm of Joseph H Low IV & Justin A Smith, Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry Law Firm. April Carson, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H Low, IV, Law Firm of Joseph H Low IV. Denise Keaton, Cherie Michelle Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph H Low, IV, Law Firm of Joseph H Low IV & Laureen Bagley, Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 21st Century Insurance Company, Farmers Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dean A Martoccia -- dmartoccia@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christopher A Crosman -- ccrosman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, George E Preonas, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Daniel C Whang, Russ August and Kabat. FIRST TENNESSEE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tyacke" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Tyacke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Tennessee Bank NA, Case No. 5:16-cv-00228-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of making unsolicited calls. First Tennessee Bank NA operates a financial services company that provides financial solutions, including checking, savings, lending, and business banking. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Logan, Esq. EDELSON PC 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 234-5260 Facsimile: (415) 373-9495 E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com FISHER PRINTING: "Diaz" Suit Moved from Super. Ct.to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Esteban Diaz v. Fisher Printing Inc. et al., Case No. 30-02015-00813102, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00081-DOC-DFM to the proceeding. Fisher Printing, an Illinois corporation, provides printing services. The Company offers commercial printing and the lithographic process, digital solutions, email marketing, and other related services. Fisher Printing serves customers in the United States. The Company is based Bridgeview, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Isandra Y Fernandez, Esq. James R Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387 7200 Facsimile: (949) 387 6676 E-mail: isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com james@jameshawkinsaplc.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandon L Sylvia, Esq. James L Morris, Esq. RUTAN AND TUCKER LLP 611 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931 Telephone: (714) 541 6100 Facsimile: (714) 546 9035 E-mail: bsylvia@rutan.com jmorris@rutan.com FLORIDA INSURANCE: "Merced" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Merced, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Florida Insurance Specialist, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00167-CEM- TBS (M.D. Fla., February 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Florida Insurance Specialist, LLC operates a home insurance company in Lake Mary, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor Post Office Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 420-5956 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com FLUIDMASTER INC: "Smith" Suit Moved, Consolidated in MDL 2575 ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kevin Smith v. Fluidmaster Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02173, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00932 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover, all costs associated with repairing, removing and/or replacing the water supply lines, as well as the costs of repairing any damage to property caused by the failure of Fluidmaster "NO-BURST" braided stainless steel supply lines to perform as represented and warranted. Fluidmaster offers toilet repair products. The Company provides toilet repair, water supply connectors, water flushing technology, flappers, and access panel products. Fluidmaster serves customers worldwide. The Company is based in Juan Capistrano, California. The Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2575 in re: Fluidmaster, Inc., Water Connector Components Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 11, 2014. The cases in this in litigation involve alleged defects in Fluidmaster's NO-BURST water supply lines, which are used to connect a wall water supply to a household device, such as a toilet or dishwasher, that feature acetal plastic coupling nuts and/or stainless braided steel supply lines. In its December 11, 2014, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:14-cv-10250. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq. Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330 7150 Facsimile: (213) 330 7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com tony@hbsslaw.com Jeniphr@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph J Tabacco Jr, Esq. Todd A Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433 3200 Facsimile: (415) 433 6382 E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Gregory F Coleman, Esq. Lisa Anne White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247 0080 Facsimile: (865) 522 0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Ria Momblanco, Esq. Fine, Kaplan And Black 1 South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567 6565 E-mail: rmomblanco@finekaplan.com The Defendant is represented by: James Chang, Esq. Kimberly L Buffington, Esq. Mark D Litvack, Esq. Sarkis Armenovich Khachatryan, Esq. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 488 7100 Facsimile: (213) 629 1033 E-mail: james.chang@pillsburylaw.com kbuffington@pillsburylaw.com mark.litvack@pillsburylaw.com sarkis.khachatryan@pillsburylaw.com - and - Michael Christopher Carroll, Esq. CARROLL AND CARROLL PC 18101 Von Karman Suite 330 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 340 7375 Facsimile: (949) 340 7379 E-mail: mcarroll@carrollpc.com FRITO-LAY INC: Pretrial Conf., Trial Date in "Sanchez" Pushed Back ------------------------------------------------------------------ The trial date and pretrial conference dates and deadlines in the case, ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRITO-LAY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-00797-DAD-MJS (E.D. Cal.), are continued for a period of six months. The new Pretrial Conference date shall be November 7, 2016, at 3:30 p.m. The new Jury Trial date shall be January 4, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. A copy of the Stipulation signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on February 29, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/yzM5kDfrom Leagle.com. Eliazar Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by: Brian D. Chase, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Bisnar Chase, LLP 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949-752-2999 E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com jbeligan@bisnarchase.com Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Samantha D. Hardy, Esq. Ashley Teiko Hirano, Esq Daniel Francisco De La Cruz, Esq. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 501 W Broadway # 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-338-650 E-mail: shardy@sheppardmullin.com ahirano@sheppardmullin.com ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com GALLAGHER BASSETT: Sued Over Failure to Issue Settlement Check -------------------------------------------------------------- Ward Kifarkis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Case No. 2016CH01170 (Ill. Ch. Ct., February 4, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons in Illinois, who were involved in a personal injury, property damage, wrongful death or tort action involving a claim for money damages in which there is a known third party right of recovery or subrogation, and tendered written confirmation of a settlement and an executed release to the Defendant and the Defendant failed to issue a settlement check to the Plaintiff and the Class within 30 days of their tender of the executed release. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. is a property/casualty third party administrator handling claims, risk and information management and medical cost containment for their clients. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 100 North LaSalle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 GHANSHAYAM ENTERPRISE: "Abbas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Ali Abbas, Jessica Curtis, and all others similarly situated plaintiffs, v. Nilkanth Narayan, LLC, Ghanshayam Enterprise, LLC, Shreeji Marajh Enterprise, LLC, Hiren Jashvantbhai Patel and Smita Hiren Patel, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00258 (S.D. Tex., Houston Division, January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all costs of the action and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. Plaintiffs claim that they worked over 40 hours a week without overtime compensation. Daniels and Young worked as a driver and a helper respectively. Nilkanth Narayan, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company operating as Bammel Food Mart located at 10131 Old Bammel N. Houston Road, Houston, Texas 77086. Ghanshayam Enterprise, LLC operates a Texaco branded gasoline station and convenience store located at 15303 Ella Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77090. Hiren Jashvantbhai Patel and Smita Hiren Patel own and operate these companies. Abbas and Curtis work as a store clerks at Bammel Food Mart. Abbas says he was required to work 65-84 hours a week during each workweek without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. One Arena Place 7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920 Houston, Texas 77074 Tel: (713) 223-1300 Fax: (713) 255-0013 Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com GARDA CL: Faces "D'Aguino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Dennis L. D'Aguino, Barry S. Dubrow, and Donald F. Hess, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated v. Garda CL Atlantic, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00641 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Garda CL Atlantic, Inc. is a Canada-based security firm providing armored car and cash handling services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C. Three School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 Facsimile: (516) 882-5420 E-mail: jmoser@moseremploymentlaw.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: Fresno Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- City of Fresno, California, and all others Similarly-situated v. General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Inc., and Frank A. Reichl, Case No. 2:16-cv-00527 (D.N.J., January 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for alleged conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of alum in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 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: Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Tel: (212) 355-9500 Fax: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com GJI INC: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Zarate Vazquez, Jose De Jesus Nande, Guadalupe E. Vidalesvillalobos, Alberto Vazquezhernandez, Juan Manuel Pacheco- Cruz v. G.J.I., Inc., d/b/a Cravings Restaurant, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC608561 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. G.J.I., Inc. does business as a restaurant and eatery in the City of West Hollywood, County of Los Angeles, State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. Josephson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213)738-5225 GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Girard Keese Loses Avandia MDL Fee Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to take up Girardi Keese's fight against turning over more than $10 million in proceeds from a 2012 settlement to the lead attorneys in multidistrict litigation involving the diabetes drug Avandia. Plaintiffs firm Girardi Keese filed more than 4,000 cases against GlaxoSmithKline PLC alleging that Avandia increased the plaintiffs' risk of heart failure. Most were in California state court, but 25 were in the multidistrict litigation, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 2014, a federal judge overseeing the MDL ordered GlaxoSmithKline to hold back 7 percent of the proceeds that Girardi Keese obtained from the settlement of all its cases, including those in state court, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed on July 2. The holdback money is designed to go to a fund that lead attorneys used to finance the costs of the MDL, such as depositions and discovery, which in turn provides a "common benefit" for all plaintiffs lawyers with Avandia cases. On Feb. 29, the Supreme Court denied Girardi Keese's petition to review that decision. "We needed Scalia," said Thomas Girardi, a partner at Girardi Keese, referring to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Feb. 13. "Because Scalia's pretty good on states' rights." Mr. Girardi was represented by Paul Clement, a partner at Bancroft in Washington. R. Jason Richards, an attorney for the plaintiffs advisory committee in the MDL, wrote in an email: "Obviously, we are very pleased with the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on Feb. 29. We never believed this issue, which essentially concerns a breach of contract, was worthy of the Supreme Court's time." Fights among plaintiffs attorneys over MDL fees have become more common, arising recently in litigation against Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc. over its Durom Cup hip implants and against Bayer CropScience L.P. over genetically modified rice claims. Last year, the Supreme Court denied a petition to review an Eighth Circuit decision involving challenged fees in the modified-rice case. In the Girardi Keese case, the Third Circuit found that U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe had authority to enforce a contract between the MDL's lead attorneys and Girardi Keese attorney Keith Griffin in 2009 in which the firm agreed to a holdback of 4 percent of its fees and 3 percent of the client's recovery. In its Nov. 24 petition, Girardi Keese said the Third Circuit broke with precedent by inappropriately applying federal court jurisdiction on state court plaintiffs. "In our cases, our firm put out $18 million in costs -- the MDL didn't do any of that -- so it was really somewhat inequitable," Mr. Girardi said. "If you have state court cases and you do all the work, all the experts, you do all that effort, then you should have a state court judge say what your fees are, not a federal judge who has nothing to do with the cases." In a Dec. 28 response, Mr. Richards, a partner at Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz in Pensacola, Florida, representing the plaintiffs advisory committee, argued that the Third Circuit's decision wasn't precedential and that the case involved "a single law firm's refusal to pay common benefit assessments in the Avandia multidistrict litigation (MDL) despite agreeing to do so." GOLDEN STATE FC: "Parson" Labor Suit Moved to N. D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Parson et al v. Golden State FC, LLC et al., Case No. RG15797524, was removed from Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00405-MEJ to the proceeding. Golden State FC is a Telephone Communication Company located in Moreno Valley, California. The Defendants are represented by: Sacha Marie Steenhoek, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442 1267 Facsimile: (415) 442 1001 E-mail: ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com GOOGLE INC: Faces "Ha" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tymuoi Ha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Google Inc. and Urban Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16- cv-29087 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Google Inc. operates a technology company specializing in Internet-related services and products. Urban Technologies, Inc. operates a staffing agency located at 341 Cobalt Way # 208, Sunnyvale, California 94085. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Sanford, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 499-5201 Facsimile: (202) 499-5119 E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com - and - Felicia Medina, Esq. Xinying Valerian, Esq. Yonina Alexander, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP 111 Sutter Street, Suite 975 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 795-2020 Facsimile: (415) 795-2021 1 E-mail: fmedina@sanfordheisler.com xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com yalexander@sanfordheisler.com GOTCHA FLOWBACK: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Patterson, and all others similarly-situated v. Gotcha Flowback LLC and Kelly Tucker, Case No. 7:16-cv-00031 (W.D. Tex., January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages and liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants specialize in providing a range of oil and gas support services to various oilfield installations. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 GREATER OMAHA PACKING: "Baglio" Suit to Recover OT, Missed Breaks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick L. Baglio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc., Defendant, Case 8:16-cv-00055-LSC-FG3 (D. Neb., January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc., is a company in the meat processing, packing and wholesale industry located at 3001 L Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68107 where Baglio worked as a licensed boiler room operator. He regularly works in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime premium and often misses his meal period. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 425-7100 Fax: (713) 425-7101 Email: rcowan@bpblaw.com HOME HEALTH: "Jasper" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jenny Jasper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated individuals, asks the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to: (a) conditionally certify a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act class; (b) require the Defendant Home Health Connection, Inc. to identify potential opt-in plaintiffs by promptly responding to the Plaintiff's First Interrogatories Directed to Defendant; and (c) implement a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claim can be promptly sent to all potential opt-in plaintiffs (and posted in workplaces). In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully failed to pay appropriate overtime compensation to employees, who were non-exempt under the FLSA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL LLC 629 N. High St., 4th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ivy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Ivy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Intec Communications, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00337-SCJ (N.D. Ga., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Intec Communications, LLC is a full service provider of residential and commercial installation to broadband cable and telecommunications industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin D. Miller, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Post Office Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 3033-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-8811 Facsimile: (404) 496-7405 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com JC CHRISTENSEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anisa Bernal f/k/a Larson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01876 (N.D. Ill., February 2, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. operates a collection agency headquartered at 200 14th Ave E, Sartell, MN 56377. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. Mary Elizabeth Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com angie@philippslegal.com mephilipps@aol.com KHANNA ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Anita Harris, and all others similarly-situated v. Khanna Enterprises General Partnership dba Custom Hotel, Khanna Enterprises, Ltd., Khana Enterprises - II Limited Partnership, Khanna Holdings LLC, Khanna Enterprises, Inc., Khanna Enterprises, Ltd., a Limited Partnership, Khanna Enterprises, Ltd. - iii, LP and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC607861 (Cal. Super., January 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a hotel in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Roseerans Avenue, Ste 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (310) 531-1900 Fax: (310) 531-1901 KOBE GRILL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lin" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Sheng Jian Lin, Sheng Hui Lin and Chao Di Chen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated employees v. Kobe Grill, Corp. d/b/a Wasabi Modern Japanese Cuisine & Lounge, Li Zhong Chen a.k.a "Leon Chen", Heng Qian Lin, Da Hui Ye, John Doe and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00184 (D. Conn., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed over 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate Wasabi Modern Japanese Cuisine & Lounge located at 1155 Tolland Turnpike, Manchester, CT 06042. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: 718.353.8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com LANDRY'S INC: "Craig" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsey Craig and Kyle Lehan on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Landry's, Inc. and McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., Case 1:16-cv-00277 (S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, January 27, 2016), seeks minimum wages due, statutory damages, enjoinment, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as well as such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Landry's is a Delaware Corporation that owns and operates restaurants under the trade names of McCormick & Schmick's Seafood & Steaks, McCormick & Schmick's - Harborside, Jake's Grill, Rainforest Cafe, Charley's Crab and others. McCormick has been owned and operated by Landry's as its subsidiary. McCormick is a restaurant chain with locations throughout the State of Ohio with locations at 21 East 5th Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, 3965 New Bond Street, Columbus, Ohio 43219 and 4429 Cedar Park Drive, Beavercreek, Ohio 45440. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked as servers for these restaurants. They worked in excess of 40 hours per week and did not receive overtime compensation. They were also deducted 1.5% from their tips for credit card payments but were told to report the full amount in their tax returns. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Trent R. Taylor, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Tel: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com LPC TRANSPORTATION: "Riley" Suit Seeks to Recovery Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Douglas Riley, and all others similarly-situated v. LPC Transportation Services, Inc. and Lawrence Janowitz, Case No. CACE-16-001130 (Fla. Cir., January 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants offer transportation and limousine services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Case No. 15-027927-CA, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20271-DPG to the proceeding. Plaintiff seek to recover from Defendant, reimbursement of all sums on a fee-for-service basis that Plaintiff's assignor Medicare Advantage Plan was billed for medical care and treatment Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance products and services. It offers property and casualty insurance products; auto, home, and life, as well as personal liability insurance products; and claim services. The company's products include car, motorcycle, other specialty vehicles, and umbrella insurance; homeowners, renters, condominium, landlord, umbrella, flood, and mobile home insurance; and life insurance. It serves clients in agriculture/farm, building maintenance, construction, education, energy, financial services, food and beverages manufacturing, healthcare, hospitality (hotels), manufacturing, printing and publishing, real estate, religious organizations, and restaurants. The Company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq. 5000 SW 75th Ave #400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 479-0828 E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com - and - Christine Marie Lugo, Esq. 5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: cclugo002@fiu.edu - and - Eric Michael Fresco, Esq. 2921 SW 132 Avenue Miami, FL 33175 Telephone: (786) 314 4106 E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com - and - Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq. John Hasan Ruiz, Esq. Timothy J Van Name, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 Facsimile: (866) 582 0907 E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com tvanname@att.net - and - Gino Moreno, Esq. LA LEY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com - and - Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq. Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq. JOHN H. RUIZ, P.A. 4182 SW 74 Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: glosa@lawofficeslaley.com rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: David Barry Krouk, Esq. Matthew John Lavisky, Esq. BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 281 1900 Facsimile: (813) 281 0900 E-mail: dkrouk@butler.legal mlavisky@butler.legal LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: E.D. La. Has Jurisdiction of "Loehn" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eldon E. Fallon denied the motion filed by Thomas and Rachel Loehn to remand the case captioned THOMAS E. AND RACHEL M. LOEHN, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Civil Action No. 15-01088 (E.D. La.) to state court. The Loehns filed an action for redhibition and damages on January 5, 2015 against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. ("LLI") and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual") in the First Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana. The plaintiffs later filed a First Supplemental and Amended Petition for Damages asserting, for the first time, class action allegations. On April 7, 2015, the suit was removed by LLI to the Eastern District of Louisiana based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On June 23, 2015, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia to be included in the National Class Multidistrict Litigation. However, the products utilized by the Loehns were not included in the listing of LLI's products that was to be included in the items to be considered by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. The Loehns dismissed their class action allegations against LLI and filed a motion to remand. The Eastern District of Virginia denied the motion, but because the Loehns' claims were no longer within the scope of the multidistrict litigation, their case was remanded to the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Loehns contended that since the matter is not part of the multidistrict litigation and all allegations regarding a class action have been dismissed, there was never any basis for removal to federal court, and remand to the First Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson is appropriate. Denying the Loehn's motion to remand, Judge Fallon held that the post-removal event wherein the Loehns dismissed their class claims does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction, which was properly established at the time of removal under CAFA. A full-text copy of Judge Fallon's February 24, 2016 order and reasons is available at http://is.gd/UYxexYfrom Leagle.com. Thomas E. Loehn, Rachel M. Loehn, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Edward Loehn, Boggs, Loehn & Rodrigue. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by H. Minor Pipes, III -- mpipes@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, Catherine Fornias Giarrusso cgiarrusso@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC & Erica A. Therio -- etherio@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, represented by George John Nalley, Jr. -- george@gnalley.com -- Nalley & Dew, APLC, Andrew James Miner -- andrew@gnalley.com -- Nalley & Dew, APLC & Bridget D. Nalley -- bridget@gnalley.com -- Nalley & Dew, APLC. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: July 19 Final Approval Hrng in "Chavez" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Claudia Wilken grants preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case, CRELENCIO CHAVEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., Defendant, No. C 09-4812 CW (N.D. Cal.). The Court finds that the plan for distribution as outlined in the Settlement is a reasonable method calculated to reach all individuals who would be bound by the Settlement. Class Members have 60 calendar days from the date on which the Settlement documents are mailed to opt out of the Settlement. An opt-out request must be postmarked on or before 60 calendar days from the date the Settlement documents are mailed. Alternatively, Class Members have 60 calendar days from the date of mailing the Settlement documents to object to the Settlement. CPT Group serves as Claims Administrator. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 19, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & United States Courthouse, United States District Court, Northern District of California, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland CA 94612. Within 15 calendar days of the Effective Date, the Defendant must pay the amount of money necessary to fund the Settlement into the settlement fund. A copy of the Court's March 1, 2016 Order is available at http://is.gd/dR5Klsfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiff Jose Zaldivar is represented by: David Augustus Garcia, Esq. Robert Tafoya, Esq. TAFOYA & GARCIA LLP 316 W 2nd St #1000 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Tel: 213-261-8813 Lumber Liquidators, Inc., is represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Jennifer P. Svanfeldt, Katherine Hyang Wol Dick, Esq. Sacha Marie Steenhoek, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Tel: 415-442-1013 Fax: 415-442-1001 E-mail: emeckley@morganlewis.com jsvanfeldt@morganlewis.com ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Case No. 15-027927-CA, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20271-DPG to the proceeding. Plaintiff seek to recover from Defendant, reimbursement of all sums on a fee-for-service basis that Plaintiff's assignor Medicare Advantage Plan was billed for medical care and treatment Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance products and services. It offers property and casualty insurance products; auto, home, and life, as well as personal liability insurance products; and claim services. The company's products include car, motorcycle, other specialty vehicles, and umbrella insurance; homeowners, renters, condominium, landlord, umbrella, flood, and mobile home insurance; and life insurance. It serves clients in agriculture/farm, building maintenance, construction, education, energy, financial services, food and beverages manufacturing, healthcare, hospitality (hotels), manufacturing, printing and publishing, real estate, religious organizations, and restaurants. The Company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq. 5000 SW 75th Ave #400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 479-0828 E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com - and - Christine Marie Lugo, Esq. 5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: cclugo002@fiu.edu - and - Eric Michael Fresco, Esq. 2921 SW 132 Avenue Miami, FL 33175 Telephone: (786) 314 4106 E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com - and - Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq. John Hasan Ruiz, Esq. Timothy J Van Name, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 Facsimile: (866) 582 0907 E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com tvanname@att.net - and - Gino Moreno, Esq. LA LEY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com - and - Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq. Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq. JOHN H. RUIZ, P.A. 4182 SW 74 Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: glosa@lawofficeslaley.com rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: David Barry Krouk, Esq. Matthew John Lavisky, Esq. BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 281 1900 Facsimile: (813) 281 0900 E-mail: dkrouk@butler.legal mlavisky@butler.legal MARYLAND CASUALTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert A. Dalzell, Inc., individually and as the representative of a certified class v. Maryland Casualty Company, Case No. 2016-CH- 01188 (Ill. Ch. Ct., January 27, 2016) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of sending telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services. Maryland Casualty Company operates an Illinois insurance company with its principal place of business in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1 000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. ANDERSON+ WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com doppenheim@andersonwanca.com MCCORMICK & CO: "Gerstnecker" Suit Transferred to Wash. D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Gerstnecker v. McCormick & Co., INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01671, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00128- ESH to the proceeding. McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland. MDL 1827: Rust Consulting to Be Paid 74,000 ------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Illston approved the cost of claims administration invoiced by Rust Consulting for $74,625.41 in the case, IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:07-MD-1827 SI (N.D. Cal.) (This Document Relates to: All Indirect-Purchaser Actions; State of Missouri, et al. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-3619; State of Florida v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-3517; and State of New York v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-0711.). The Judge said these amounts may be deducted from each Settling Defendant's Settlement Fund to pay the costs of claims administration: Chimei $7,605.15 Chunghwa $365.87 Epson $196.55 HannStar $1,768.99 Hitachi $2,688.12 Samsung $16,551.92 Sharp $7,965.61 AUO $11,138.06 LG $24,896.85 Toshiba $1,448.29 ------------ TOTAL $74,625.41 A copy of the Court's Feb. 26 Order is available at http://is.gd/2M4pZjfrom Leagle.com. METLIFE: "Martin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Martin et al. v. Metropolitan Life (MetLife) Insurance Company, Case No. C15-02281, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00484-KAW to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that MetLife engaged in the unlawful practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances without a prior written agreement signed by the borrower in violation of California's Usury Law and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory relief, violations of the UCL, violations of the Usury Law, and money had and received and unjust enrichment. MetLife, together with its subsidiaries, provides life insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management services in the United States. It operates through three segments: Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits; and Corporate Benefit Funding. The Retail segment offers variable, universal, term, and whole life insurance products; disability products; and various mutual funds and other securities products, as well as variable and fixed annuities. The Company is based in New York, New York. The Defendant is represented by: Carol Lynn Thompson, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1715 Telephone: (415) 772 1200 Facsimile: (415) 772 7400 E-mail: cthompson@sidley.com - and - Susan A. Stone, Esq. Joel S. Feldman, Esq. Lisa E. Schwartz, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853 7000 Facsimile: (312) 853 7036 E-mail: sstone@sidley.com jfeldman@sidley.com lschwartz@sidley.com MITCHELL CELAYA: 9th Cir. Rejects UC Berkeley Protesters' Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CALLIE MAIDHOF, ZACHARY SOLOMON MILLER, JOSHUA CLOVER, LUZILDA CARILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MITCHELL CELAYA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 13-16800 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court on the issue of qualified immunity and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claim against Mitchell Celaya. A putative class action was brought on behalf of approximately 60 individuals who were arrested on December 11, 2009 on misdemeanor trespass charges while occupying Wheeler Hall, a classroom building on the University of California, Berkeley campus, to protest budget cuts. The plaintiffs claimed that Celaya, the former Chief of the University of California Police Department, departed from a plan calling for field citations and directed that the arrestees be transported to the Santa Rita County Jail for booking and citation in retaliation for their protected First Amendment activities. For his part, Celaya testified that he decided to transport the arrestees to Santa Rita in order to avoid dispruptive or possibly violent confrontations with protesters who were gathering outside of Wheeler Hall. The district court denied Celaya's motion for summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense. On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit found that while Celaya offered a non-retaliatory justification for his decision to conduct booking and citation off-site, the plaintiffs' evidence of retaliatory intent was weak. The appellate court thus concluded that the plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to conclude that a desire to chill protected speech was a "but-for" cause of Celaya's conduct. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's February 25, 2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/NFJvBefrom Leagle.com. MKTG4U LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, California Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Cristina Escalante Molina, an individual, Tomasa Chavez-Navarro, an individual v. MKTG4U, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation, Jerry L. Lanier, D.D.S., Inc., a California Corporation, d.b.a. Kids Dental Kare, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC609627 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 9, 2016), is brought for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay all wages due, to provide rest periods, and to pay overtime wages. The Defendants are doing business as a dental office in the city of Los Angeles. The two corporate entities, MKTG4U, LLC and Jerry L. Lanier, D.D.S., Inc., conducted business as a single employer, controlling workers that provide referral and marketing to that certain "Kids Dental Kare" office and services, products, and dental care to referred patients. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack D. Josephson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213)738-5225 MONETARY MANAGEMENT: April 21 Fairness Hearing Set in "Rodas" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned TITA RODAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MONETARY MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-01389-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley issued an order granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement, conditionally certifying a settlement class, approving the form of notice to the class, and setting the hearing on the final approval of the settlement. The parties to the case have agreed to settle pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in a Preliminary Settlement Agreement. Judge Nunley preliminarily approved the settlement upon finding that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable rules have been satisfied. Judge Nunley thus conditionally certified solely for settlement purposes the class defined in the agreement, appointed Tita Rodas as class representative, and appointed Gaines & Gaines, APLC as attorneys for the class. Judge Nunley also approved as to form and content, and manner of distribution, the Class Notice and the Request for Exclusion Form attached to the settlement agreement. The judge also approved the selection of Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. The Final Fairness and Approval Hearing was set to April 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Nunley, in Courtroom 2 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. A full-text copy of Judge Nunley's February 24, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/RFWu7nfrom Leagle.com. Tita Rodas, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Paul Katofsky -- alex@gaineslawfirm.com -- Gaines & Gaines, APLC & Daniel Franklin Gaines -- daniel@gaineslawfirm.com -- Gaines & Gaines, APLC. Monetary Management of California, Inc., Defendant, represented by C Griffith Towle -- gtowle@bzbm.com -- Bartko Zankel Bunzel and Miller, Simon Richard Goodfellow -- sgoodfellow@bzbm.com -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller & Sony B. Barari -- sbarari@bzbm.com -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller. MRS BPO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Saroza" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Nestor Saroza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00635-WHW-CLW (D.N.J., February 4, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. MRS BPO, LLC offers 1st and 3rd party collections, accounts receivable management, and back office management services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com NEW JERSEY: "Slaughter" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles S. Slaughter and 39 other plaintiffs -- individuals confined by the State of New Jersey -- bring a civil action, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The case is, CHARLES S. SLAUGHTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-8327 (MAS)(D.N.J.). On Feb. 26, 2016, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to proceed as a class action. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at http://is.gd/aKR8tffrom Leagle.com. District Judge Michael A. Shipp oversees the case. NWP SERVICES: "Brown" Suit Moved from Judicial Ct. to M.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Brown v. NWP Services Corporation et al., Case No. 16-2015-CA-007977-XXXX-MA, was removed from Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16- cv-00081-BJD-JRK to the proceeding. NWP Services Corporation provides utility management, energy management, electronic payment, sub metering, and back office solutions. It offers utility management solutions, including resident billing, utility expense management, advanced analytics and reporting, sub metering and maintenance, and regulatory compliance; sub metering systems; e-Pay, a payment processing portal for residents; and back office solutions, such as accounting, utility review and management, information technology, help desk, and acquisition support. The company serves portfolio owner manager, fee manager, affordable housing, student housing, and mixed use segments. NWP Services Corporation was founded in 1995 and is based in Irvine, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Steven Thomas Simmons Jr., Esq. Varnell & Warwick, PA P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753 8600 Facsimile: (352) 753 8606 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com - and - James Anthony Kowalski Jr., Esq. Jeffrey Graham Haynie, Esq. JACKSONVILLE AREA LEGAL AID, INC. V126 W Adams St Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 356 8371 Facsimile: (904) 244 1587 E-mail: Kowalski.law@mac.com jeff.haynie@jaxlegalaid.org The Defendant is represented by: Monica L. Irel, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 10700 N Kendall Dr, Ste 303 Miami, FL 33175 Telephone: (305) 670 4843 Facsimile: (305) 670 4846 E-mail: Monica.Irel@dentons.com - and - Pamela St. John Lynde, Esq. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN 200 W Forsyth St, Suite 1400 Jacksonville, FL 32202-3427 Telephone: (904) 358 4200 Facsimile: (904) 355 0019 E-mail: pslynde@mdwcg.com OPORTUN INC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA ---------------------------------------------------- Kenyard Edwards, and all others Similarly-situated v. Oportun, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00519 (N.D. Calif., January 29, 2016), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleged that between December 10, 2015 and December 28, 2015, Defendant Oportun, Inc. made 9 telephone calls to Plaintiff, Kenyard Edwards, on his cellular telephone to collect a debt owed by someone named Javier. These calls were made using an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Mr. Edwards did not give Oportun prior express written consent to make these calls. Oportun, formerly Progreso Financiero, was founded in 2005 with the goal of providing credit-building, affordable loans to the approximately 25 million financially-underserved Hispanics in the US, many of whom have limited or no credit history. The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com apersinger@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com PERFORMANT RECOVERY: "McPherson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Shakima McPherson, and all others Similarly-situated v. Performant Recovery, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00520 (N.D. Calif., January 29, 2016), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleged that between October 27, 2015 and December 29, 2015, the Defendant made 14 telephone calls to Plaintiff on her cellular telephone to collect a debt. These calls were made using an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Mr. McPherson did not give Performant prior express written consent to make these calls. Performant Recovery works with government and private organizations that outsource the identification of overpayments and underpayments to agencies whose core competencies are in the efficient and thorough examination and resolution of healthcare related assets. The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com apersinger@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com POINT LOMA CREDIT: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hernandez v. Point Loma Credit Union et al., Case No. 37-02013-00053519-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv- 00146-LAB-MDD to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff challenges the Defendant's overdraft program. Point Loma has allegedly breached its contracts and otherwise has unlawfully and unfairly collected overdraft fees from its members. Point Loma Credit Union was founded in 1948. The company's line of business includes the cooperative thrift and loan associations (accepting deposits) organized under Federal charter to finance credit needs of their members. The Company is based in San Diego, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557 1250 Facsimile: (909) 557 1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com The Defendant is represented by: Stuart M. Richter, Esq. Gregory S. Korman, Esq. Andrew J. Demko, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012 Telephone: (310) 788 4400 Facsimile: (310) 788 4471 E-mail: stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com greg.korman@kattenlaw.com andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com PROSPECT FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jackie Winters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prospect Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16- cv-00289-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., February 3, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of making unsolicited calls. Prospect Financial Group, Inc. operates a loan agency located at 948 Garnet Ave, San Diego, CA 92109. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com PROVIDENT FUNDING: Dismissal Bid Reply in "Steinberg" Due Mar 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar gave his stamp of approval on a stipulation extending the briefing schedule, and continuing the hearing and case management conference in the case, ROBERT L. STEINBERG and SONIA STEINBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-03743-JST (N.D. Cal.). The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint on February 19, 2016. Under Civil L.R. 7-3, Plaintiffs' response to the Motion was due on March 4, 2016, and Defendant's reply to the Motion is currently due on March 11, 2016. The motion hearing is currently set for March 31, 2016; and the case management conference is currently scheduled for April 6, 2016. In light of prior commitments and other scheduling issues of counsel, the parties agreed to an extension of the briefing schedule, a continuation of the motion hearing, and a continuation of the case management conference: 1. the due date for Plaintiff's response to the Motion is extended to March 18, 2016; 2. the due date for Defendant's reply to the Motion is extended to April 1, 2016; 3. the motion hearing is continued to April 21, 2016; and 4. the case management conference is continued to June 1, 2016. A copy of the Stipulation dated Feb. 26, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/UrTIIofrom Leagle.com. The Steinbergs are represented by George Haksoo Kim, David A. Chandler, and Douglas D. von Oiste, at Karst & von Oiste, LLP; and Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- and Kyle A. Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC. Provident Funding Associates, L.P., is represented by J. Christopher Mitchell -- chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com -- Neil Richard O'Hanlon, Robert B. Hawk -- robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com - - and Stacy R. Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP. RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Hernandez, and Maria Quiroga, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Restaurant Organization, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00028 (S.D. Tex., February 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Restaurant Organization, LLC is a foreign limited liability company registered in the State of Texas and is engaged in the business of restaurant operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Loren, Esq. GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A. 3102 Maple Avenue -Suite 450 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (954) 585-4878 Facsimile: (954) 585-4886 E-mail: JLoren@Lorenlaw.co SALES RAIN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mills" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Steven Mills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sales Rain, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00301-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of making unsolicited calls. Sales Rain, Inc. provides sales and marketing services catering to an international clientele. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samantha Alane Smith, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92604 Telephone: (949) 724-9200 Facsimile: (949) 724-9255 E-mail: samantha@cooper-firm.com SALINAS CA: Injunction Bid Over Ordinance 2564 Denied ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh denies, as moot, the request filed by a group of homeless individuals living in the City of Salinas, California, for preliminary injunction to bar the City from enforcing Ordinance 2564, specifically, by seizing, storing and/or immediately and/or subsequently destroying personal property including so-called "bulky items" belonging to homeless individuals living without shelter in the City. The Court on Nov. 25, 2015, denied Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a temporary restraining order without prejudice. In a Feb. 29, 2016 Order, Judge Koh finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and thus vacates the motion hearing set for March 3, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. The case management conference, scheduled for March 3, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., remained as set. The case is, RITA ACOSTA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SALINAS, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-05415-LHK (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Court's Feb. 29, 2016 Order is available at http://is.gd/DuA2Cu from Leagle.com. Rita Acosta and the other Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley S. Phillips -- Brad.Phillips@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Alisa L Hartz, Public Counsel, Anne Kendrick Richardson, Public Counsel, John B. Major, Munger, Tolles Olson LLP, Joshua S. Meltzer, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP & Anthony David Prince, Law Officces of Anthony D. Prince. City of Salinas, Defendant, is represented by: Nathaniel Le Roi Dunn, Esq. Rachel Rose Ostrander, Esq. Ryan M. Thompson, Esq. Vincent P. Hurley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. HURLEY 38 Seascape Resort Dr Aptos, CA 95003 Tel: 831-661-4800 SANJEL (USA): "Keller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Keller, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Sanjel (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:16- cv-00271 (D. Colo., February 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sanjel (USA) Inc. operates an energy services company providing pumping and completions services to oil and gas companies throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. Udyogi A. Hangawatte KENNEDY HODGES LLP 711 W. Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com uhangawatte@kennedyhodges.com SCOTT ROTHSTEIN: Gibraltar Bank Fined Over Role in Ponzi Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that federal regulators fined Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust Co. a combined $6.5 million for willfully violating federal anti-money laundering laws as part of disbarred attorney Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which ordered a $4 million fine, faulted the Coral Gables-based bank for handling nearly $558 million in suspect transactions from 2009 to 2013. Simultaneously, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which previously placed Gibraltar under a consent order, issued a $2.5 million fine. FinCEN charged the bank failed to act on red flags in Mr. Rothstein's $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud. Mr. Rothstein bought a stake in the bank while running the scheme from his former Fort Lauderdale law firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. He is serving a 50-year prison sentence, and about two dozen others were convicted for crimes involving the fraud and the money that flowed into it. Gibraltar and TD Bank were Mr. Rothstein's two primary banks handling his illicit funds. "We are pleased that the consent agreements bring to closure an open regulatory issue," Gibraltar chairman and CEO Adolfo Henriques said in a statement. "The civil penalties imposed by the OCC and FinCEN have been fully reserved." FinCEN charged substantial deficiencies led to Gibraltar's failure to timely file at least 120 suspicious activity reports on improper money moves. "We may never know how that scheme might have been disrupted had Gibraltar more rigorously complied with its obligations under the law," FinCEN director Jennifer Shasky Calvery said in a statement. "This bank's failure to implement and maintain an effective AML program exposed its customers, its banking peers and our financial system to significant abuse." Gibraltar's transaction monitoring system contained incomplete and inaccurate account opening information and customer risk profiles, which hindered its compliance staff from adequately spotting unusual activity, according to the agency. Additionally, the bank failed to sufficiently address an automated monitoring system that generated an unmanageable number of alerts, including large numbers of false positives. Gibraltar also failed to properly train its compliance staff and develop and implement an adequate customer identification program under the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN alleges. FinCEN coordinated its action with the OCC. The case will be closed with an immediate payment of $1.5 million to the Treasury Department and a $2.5 million payment to OCC, the agencies stated. The bank disclosed last April that it was the subject of a Justice Department investigation into alleged money laundering. The penalties were announced just days after former Gibraltar CEO Steven Hayworth sued the bank, alleging fraud and breach of contract and seeking $40 million in damages. He founded the bank in 1994 and was replaced by Henriques, a former chairman, in 2012. Mr. Hayworth's lawsuit filed in Miami federal court alleges he was used as a scapegoat by the bank's board of directors and pressured into leaving shortly after Gibraltar settled several Rothstein- related lawsuits. A $15 million settlement was approved in the bankruptcy case of Mr. Rothstein's law firm, which collapsed weeks after the fraud in 2009. SCRIPPS NP OPERATING: "Fogarty" Suit Moved to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Paul J. Fogarty v. Scripps NP Operating, LLC et al., Case No. 56-02015-00475642-CU-CE-VTA, was removed from the Ventura County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00454-FMO-E to the proceeding. Scripps NP Operating is as Foreign Limited Liability Company, engaged in visual art services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cesar H Nava, Esq. Stanley J Hodson, Esq. NAVA LAW FIRM 326 South A Street Suite 2 Oxnard, CA 93030 Telephone: (805) 483 2465 Facsimile: (805) 483 0860 E-mail: cnava@NG-Law.com sjhodson@ng-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Jane Brick, Esq. Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq. Shannon R Boyce, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (310) 553 0308 Facsimile: (310) 553 5583 E-mail: abrick@littler.com estaggs-wilson@littler.com sboyce@littler.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MICHAEL DEATRICK, Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-05016-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar granted a motion for provisional certification of a proposed California opt-out class, but denied a motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement. Michael Deatrick filed the case on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of current and former security employees of Securitas, who were subject to its "Vacation Pay Plan." The complaint asserted a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), alleging that Securitas failed to pay them full overtime compensation because Securitas failed to take into account in the overtime calculation the payments that security guards received in connection with the Plan. The court certified the FLSA nationwide class on November 4, 2014. The plaintiffs later requested for preliminary approval of a class settlement reached by the parties that provides for a total payment of $2,500,000 by Securitas. The plaintiffs also requested conditional certification of an additional California opt-out class for settlement purposes. Judge Tigar found that the proposed class is adequately defined and ascertainable, and that there is a dominant legal question in the case which satisfies the numerosity and commonality requirements for class certification. The judge also found that the typicality requirement is satisfied because Deatrick's and the proposed class' claims both rely on the same policies of Securitas. Judge Tigar also concluded that Deatrick and his counsel will adequately represent the proposed class. Finally, Judge Tigar found that the dominant legal issue of how to interpret Securitas' vacation pay policy predominates over any questions that could affect only individual class members, and that a class action is a superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating those and other questions. Judge Tiglar, however, found deficiencies with the proposed notice procedure and claim form procedure of the class settlement. The judge explained that a statement that "reasonable" steps will be taken to ensure delivery lacks enough specificity for the court to determine whether the notice process is sufficient. Judge Tiglar also concluded that the claim form requirement puts unnecessary impediments in the path of plaintiffs receiving their due compensation for their injuries under the proposed settlement. A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's February 24, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/VCa2GSfrom Leagle.com. Michael Deatrick, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Hurley, Prometheus Partners L.L.P., Daniel Chris Quintero, Prometheur Partners L.L.P., Eduardo Gregory Roy, Prometheus Partners L.L.P. & Jill Dessalines, Prometheus Partners L.L.P.. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sherry Beth Shavit -- sshavit@tharpe-howell.com -- Tharpe & Howell, LLP, John Kevin Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Stuart Edward Cohen -- scohen@tharpe-howell.com -- Tharpe and Howell, LLP. SECURITY NATIONAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Security National Insurance Company, Case No. 15-028181-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20328- RNS to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus, a Medicare Advantage Organization that had contracted with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. General Security National Insurance Co. provides property and casualty reinsurance services. The company was formerly known as Sorema North America Reinsurance Co. and changed its name in January 2002. General Security National Insurance Co. was founded in 1980 and is based in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq. 5000 SW 75th Ave #400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 479-0828 E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com - and - Christine Marie Lugo, Esq. 5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: cclugo002@fiu.edu - and - Eric Michael Fresco, Esq. 2921 SW 132 Avenue Miami, FL 33175 Telephone: (786) 314 4106 E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com - and - Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq. John Hasan Ruiz, Esq. Timothy J Van Name, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 Facsimile: (866) 582 0907 E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com tvanname@att.net - and - Gino Moreno, Esq. LA LEY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com - and - Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq. Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq. JOHN H. RUIZ, P.A. 4182 SW 74 Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: glosa@lawofficeslaley.com rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Valerie B. Greenberg, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 1 SE 3rd Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, FL 33131-1714 Telephone: (305) 374 5600 Facsimile: (305) 374 5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com valerie.greenberg@akerman.com SMART UTILITY: "Marinucci" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Marinucci, and all others similarly-situated v. Smart Utility Systems, LLC and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 16-CV-290374 (Cal. Super., January 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime in violation of the California Labor Code. Smart Utility Systems LLC provides products and services for the energy and utility sector. The company offers solutions for mobile platforms, customer services, and workforce management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq. GAINES & GAINES, APLC 27200 Agoura Road, Ste. 101 Calabasas, CA 91301 Tel: (818) 703-8985 Fax: (818) 703-8984 SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hamra" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yaffa Hamra, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Squaretwo Financial Corporation d/b/a Fresh View Solutions, Case No. 1:16-cv-00568-AMD-RML (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Squaretwo Financial Corporation provides business and financial information, as well as governance, filings, and reports. 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 STANFORD: Chadbourne & Parke Agrees to Settle Ponzi Scheme Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Triedman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Chadbourne & Parke has agreed to a confidential settlement with aggrieved investors in R. Allen Stanford $7 billion Ponzi scheme, ending the firm's involvement in more than six years of litigation related to a former partner's role advising the disgraced financier. Lawyers for the firm informed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the deal on Feb. 26. That leaves Proskauer Rose and Stanford's former lawyer, Thomas Sjoblom, the former co-chair of the securities litigation and enforcement practice at Proskauer, as the two remaining defendants facing investor class claims of up to $5 billion in the suit. Mr. Sjoblom joined Proskauer in 2006 after leaving Chadbourne. Separate proposed class actions are also moving ahead against two other firms -- Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams -- that once served Sanford's business interests. Investors filed their class certification briefs in the parallel cases on Feb. 26. Adams and Reese, meanwhile, agreed to pay $1 million in May 2015 to settle similar investor claims stemming from its work for Stanford-related entities. In a letter to the Fifth Circuit describing the Chadbourne agreement, the firm's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison -- led by litigation partner Daniel Beller -- dbeller@paulweiss.com -- in New York -- wrote that the settlement still requires approval by U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas, "and we do not anticipate that the district court will be in a position to rule upon the proposed settlement for several months." The class action, filed in late 2009, arose from Mr. Sjoblom's work as Mr. Stanford's main corporate counsel. Investors accuse Mr. Sjoblom -- and his former firms by extension -- of aiding Stanford's massive fraud by obstructing a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into Stanford Financial Group and 140 other Stanford-affiliated companies around the world. The Chadbourne settlement is the latest twist in a case that has already been litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation's top court ruled in 2014 that the investor suit wasn't barred under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 because the certificates of deposit weren't covered by SLUSA. Last year, Judge Godbey ruled that the claims against Stanford's former lawyers could proceed. Proskauer and Chadbourne were both scheduled to give oral arguments on Feb. 29 in a repeat round of interlocutory appeals to the Fifth Circuit. Now, Proskauer's lawyer, Davis Polk & Wardwell's head of litigation James Rouhandeh, will be arguing alone. Proskauer, which has taken the lead in all the appeals, takes issue with the investors' argument that Mr. Sjoblom and the law firms can be sued for damages under a "fraud exception" to attorney immunity. The Davis Polk team has argued that a decision by the Texas Supreme Court in another recent case makes Judge Godbey's decision last February green-lighting investor claims ripe for reconsideration. The Texas high court's decision on qualified attorney immunity, which Davis Polk argues applies to Proskauer and Stanford, found that attorneys can only be sued by former clients, not by nonclients. The Stanford investors, represented by Edward Valdespino, a former partner at Strasburger & Price in San Antonio, argue in their response briefs that the interlocutory appeal itself shouldn't be before the appeals court because conditions for the emergency appeal have not been met. Proskauer must be hoping that this trip to the Fifth Circuit's seat in New Orleans will go better than the last time the firm appeared before the court on a Stanford-related issue in 2012. In that earlier appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed a decision by Judge Godbey to dismiss the investor suits under SLUSA. Mr. Sjoblom's attorney, Dentons partner Joshua Hochberg in Washington, D.C., isn't expected to give oral arguments. Mr. Sjoblom, who now has his own firm, filed for personal bankruptcy protection in the nation's capital in May 2014. More recently, a bankruptcy judge confirmed Mr. Sjoblom's plan to pay a minimum of $1,500 a month to creditors, including tax authorities, as well as Stanford investors. It remains unclear how much Mr. Sjoblom's professional liability policy is worth. The current slate of Stanford suits is the second against law firms that represented the convicted Ponzi schemer, who was brutally beaten in jail before his 2012 trial. A federal judge dismissed in 2014 an earlier malpractice suit filed against Chadbourne and Proskauer by a court-appointed receiver representing Stanford victims. Other professional services firms have also faced litigation, including Stanford's main accounting firm, BDO USA, which agreed to pay $40 million in May 2015 to settle investor claims. Judge Godbey, as noted by sibling publication Texas Lawyer, approved that deal in September. As for Stanford, Mr. Sjoblom's former client, he is currently nearly four years into a 110-year prison sentence handed down in 2012 for his role directing an Antigua-based scheme involving bogus certificates of deposit. SYNENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce W. Cooperman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Synenberg & Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00580 (D.N.J., February 2, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Synenberg & Associates, LLC operates a law firm located at 55 Public Square #1331, Cleveland, OH 44113. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com TF FINAL: "Gates" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Gates, on behalf of himself and those similarly v. TF Final Mile, LLC, f/k/a Dynamex Operations East, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00341-RWS (February 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. TF Final Mile, LLC operates a transportation management solutions company which services customers throughout the country by providing outsourced delivery/courier services, among other transportation services. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com TRICAN WELL: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Hall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly v. Trican Well Service, LP, Case No. 5:16-cv-00125-OLG (W.D. Tex., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Trican Well Service, LP provides products and services in and for the oil and gas industry throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos A. Solis, Esq. SOLIS & SMITH P.C. 310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2900 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 446-5000 Facsimile: (210) 446-5001 E-mail: csolis@hilley-solis.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Reimbursement ------------------------------------------------------------- Saizhang Guan and Longbin Li, on behalf of themselves and the Class v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00598-PKC-CLP (E.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide 100% toll reimbursement to Uber drivers. Uber Technologies, Inc. provides car services through a smartphone application, which enables users to arrange and schedule transportation and logistics services with drivers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com VIGILANT CANINE: Sued Over Failure to Timely Pay Separation Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Alastair McGuire, Daniel McAlister, Darren Goodall, George Fort, and Rosy Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Vigilant Canine Services International, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00206-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., February 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to timely pay all wages due and owing to the Plaintiffs upon separation of employment. Vigilant Canine Services International, LLC owns and operates a K- 9 company that provides services to law enforcement in the United States and contracts for service internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, CA 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: mark@thuermanbuck.com josh@thuermanbuck.com leah@thuermanbuck.com WAL-MART: No Spoliation of Evidence in Crib Death Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that parents who claim their infant son died in his crib after suffocating because of an allegedly defective bumper pad had no duty to preserve the other items in the crib at the time, a federal judge ruled in finding there was no spoliation of evidence. The defendants in Micjan v. Wal-Mart Stores wanted the most severe sanction for what it claimed was spoliation of evidence, but U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied their request for summary judgment. After their three-month-old son Dylan Micjan died in March 2012 from asphyxia, Travis and Stefanie Micjan sued Wal-Mart, which sold the bumper pad; Garan Services Corp., which licensed the product; and Triboro Quilt Manufacturing, which made the bumper pad. The three defendants argued the couple failed to preserve key evidence, including the crib, crib mattress, two blankets, a stuffed animal and a pillow, that were all in the crib at the time of their son's death. The defendants said Dylan could have died from suffocating on any of those other items and their inability to examine those items prohibited them from preparing a full defense. Mitchell questioned, however, just how the issue even rose to spoliation. He said traditional products liability cases deal with spoliation in the context of the allegedly defective item being destroyed. And spoliation is often asserted when documents are destroyed, Judge Mitchell said. He said neither of those issues were present in the Micjans' case. The closest precedent Mitchell could find to this case, he said, were those cases involving fires where the source of the fire is unknown and the plaintiffs preserve only the item they think was the culprit. In one such case, Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Emerson Electric, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found in favor of the plaintiff that had preserved only the item it had been informed was the most likely cause of the fire. "In this case, the coroner independently concluded that the cause of death was most likely asphyxiation on the crib bumper pad and she did not base this conclusion on the report of Mr. Micjan about the position in which he found Dylan," Judge Mitchell said. "Rather . . . she found a line on the baby's face which was consistent with being compressed against the crib bumper pad and not consistent with the other items in the crib." Mitchell determined the Micjans had no duty to retain the other items in the crib. He further went on to note the defendants did not meet the standards to show spoliation occurred. The defendants didn't just have to show that the items were in the Micjans' control and that they could be relevant to the case, but that the Micjans acted in bad faith in not retaining the items. Judge Mitchell said there was no evidence the Micjans acted to impede the defense and that most of the items were lost during two moves the Micjans made between Pennsylvania and Virginia. "Moreover, defendants have not explained how the 'duty to preserve the evidence was reasonably foreseeable to' [the Micjans], lay persons who would have had no reason to anticipate that the blanket, mattress and other items could be part of some future defense in a lawsuit they had not filed," Judge Mitchell said. When other courts have found a duty to preserve, Judge Mitchell noted, it was typically when lawyers were involved or they failed to tell their clients to put litigation holds on the evidence. Judge Mitchell also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the lack of the other items in the crib. "There is no suggestion, for example, that these items would contain physical evidence that Dylan had asphyxiated on them," Mitchell said. "The loss of the particular items in the crib does not cause prejudice because defendants can obtain other examples of such items and present them as part of their defense." Judge Mitchell said the defendants could also question the Micjans and the medical examiner at trial about the other items in the crib. WAL-MART STORES: Must Produce Docs to PGERS, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WAL-MART STORES, INC., and MICHAEL T. DUKE, Petitioners, v. CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent. CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and MICHAEL T. DUKE, Defendants, Misc. No. 15-242-SLR, Civ. No. 12-5162 (SOH) (W.D. Ark.), Judge Sue L. Robinson granted in part and denied in part the motion to quash filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Michael T. Duke. Wal-Mart and Duke moved to quash two subpoenas issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, at the request of City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System ("PGERS"), and directed to Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. ("G&E") and Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund ("IBEW"). The subpoenas requested the production of documents related to the litigation between IBEW and Wal-Mart, for use in PGERS' current securities action against Wal-Mart and Duke. Wal-Mart objected to the subpoenas on the basis that they demanded privileged documents. In the IBEW litigation, the Court of Chancery ordered Wal-Mart to produce certain responsive documents to IBEW, including those protected under attorney-client privilege pursuant to the Garner doctrine, which provides that a corporation may not be fully protected by claims of privilege in a suit brought by the corporation's shareholders. However, in its final order, the Court of Chancery specified that its ruling on the application of the Garner doctrine or exceptions to attorney work-product protection is not intended to extend to any other documents of Wal-Mart, or to result in a waiver of any of Wal-Mart's applicable privileges. Judge Robinson concluded that Wal-Mart's previous disclosure does not amount to a waiver of its ability to assert applicable privileges, and that it retains its ability to assert a claim of privilege with respect to the information requested under the subpoenas. Accordingly, Judge Robinson granted Wal-Mart's motion to quash in this regard. However, Judge Robinson found that Wal-Mart has failed to assert a valid claim of privilege with respect to the documents requested by PGERS because Wal-Mart did not produce a privilege log that would allow the court to assess its claim of privilege. Thus, Wal-Mart's motion to quash was denied in this regard. A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's February 24, 2016 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/BMsLnifrom Leagle.com. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Michael T. Duke, Petitioners, represented by Donald J. Wolfe, Jr. -- dwolfe@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Stephen C. Norman -- snorman@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP & Tyler J. Leavengood -- tleavengood@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP. City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Respondent, represented by Joel E. Friedlander -- jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com -- Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. & Christopher M. Foulds -- cfoulds@friedlandergorris.com -- Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.. WEST VIRGINIA: Detainees' Class Certification Bid Denied -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert C. Chambers adopted and incorporated the proposed findings of fact and recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert in the case captioned JEREMY A. JOHNSON, DUANE MAYNARD, NORMAN DILLON, ALTON TRIBBLE, TIMOTHY S. JACKSON, WILLILAM WRAY, STEVEN DAVIS, WILLIE SLOCUM, Plaintiffs, v. SRT DIRECTOR AUSTIN BURKE; WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY; WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL; and CABELL COUNTY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:14-26429 (S.D.W. Va.), and denied Alton Tribble's objections thereto. The action was filed by eight pro se individuals who were pretrial detainees at the Western Regional Jail at the time the complaint was filed, alleging that they were subjected to "barbaric" lockdown conditions for 13 days while held at the regional jail. The Magistrate Judge previously issued her First Proposed Findings and Recommendations on May 15, 2015 and her Second Proposed Findings and Recommendations on September 25, 2015. Plaintiff Alton Tribble filed various documents which were construed as objections to the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Judge Chambers found that the objections filed by Tribble were untimely. Objections to the First Proposed Findings and Recommendations were due to the court on June 8, 2015, but Tribble did not file his objections until September 17, 2015. Also, the deadline for filing objections to the Second Proposed Findings and Recommendations was on October 13, 2015, but Tribble did not mail his objections until October 14, 2015 and they were not filed with the court until October 16, 2015. In addition, Judge Chambers found no clear error in both Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and found no merit to Tribble's arguments. Thus, Judge Chambers adopted and incorporated the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations as follows: -- dismissing with prejudice the defendants the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority, the Western Regional Jail, and Cabell County; -- dismissing without prejudice the plaintiffs' claim for prospective injunctive relief; -- denying without prejudice defendant Austin Burke's Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process -- denying plaintiff Tribble's Motion to Certify a Class Action and Desinate[sic] this as a Multidistrict HQ -- denying plaintiff Tribble's Motion to Strike, Overrule, and/or to Reserve Burke; and -- dismissing without prejudice plaintiffs Jeremy A. Johnson, Duane Maynard, William Wray, Steven Davis, and Willie Slocum. A full-text copy of Judge Chambers' February 24, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/mqCQgsfrom Leagle.com. SRT Director Austin Burke, Defendant, represented by Julie Meeks Greco -- jmeeks@pffwv.com -- PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE & Katie L. Hicklin, PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE. WONDERFUL CITRUS: Court Trims Claims in "Peralta" Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARCELINA PERALTA and RIGOBERTO MONJARAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING LLC and DOES 1-10, Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-00263-TLN-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley denied Wonder Citrus Packing LLC's motion to strike but granted its motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action to the extent that it includes a claim under California Labor Code Section 202. A class action complaint was filed by seasonal workers who harvested citrus grown at various locations in Kern County for Wonderful Citrus. The complaint alleged, among other causes of action, that Wonderful Citrus violated California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 by its willful failure to pay at the time of the plaintiff's termination, all wages earned by and unpaid to the plaintiffs prior to the time of their termination, although Wonderful Citrus had the ability to do so. Wonderful Citrus moved to dismiss the fifth cause of action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to the extent that the plaintiffs asserted such a claim under Labor Code Section 202. Alternatively, Wonderful Citrus moved to strike references to Labor Code Section 202 in the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f). Wonderful Citrus contended that the two named plaintiffs, Marcelina Peralta and Rigoberto Monjaraz, do not have standing to assert claims under that statute because violations of Labor Code Section 202 can only be asserted by individuals who quit their position. Peralta and Monjaraz have admitted that they were "laid off." Judge Nunley rejected Wonderful Citrus' motion to strike as improper because it is based solely on the named plaintiffs' lack of standing to assert the claim, and does not involve striking an insufficient defense or a redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter as listed in Rule 12(f). Judge Nunley, however, agreed with Wonderful Citrus that a claim made under Labor Code Section 202 may only be asserted by individuals who quit. Since Peralta and Monjaraz admitted they were "laid off," Judge Nunley concluded that they therefore lacked standing to assert a claim under this provision. A full-text copy of Judge Nunley's February 23, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/zRcIrcfrom Leagle.com. Marcelina Peralta, Rigoberto Monjaraz, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory N. Karasik, Karasik Law Firm & Santos Gomez, Law Offices of Santos Gomez. Paramount Citrus Cooperative, Defendant, represented by Azadeh Allayee, Roll Law Group P.C., Brooke S. Hammond, Roll Law Group P.C., James Paul Pecht, Roll Law Group P.C. & Kristina Maria Diaz, Roll Law Group, PC. Wonderful Citrus Packing LLC, Defendant, represented by Azadeh Allayee, Roll Law Group P.C.. XBIOTECH INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Named Lead Counsel in "Tran" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sam Sparks appointed Kresimir Corak as lead plaintiff, Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC as lead counsel, and Abraham, Watkins, Nichol, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend as liaison counsel for the class in the case captioned LINH TRAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. XBIOTECH INC., JOHN SIMARD, AND QUENNA HAN, Defendants, Cause No. A-15-CA- 01083-SS (W.D. Tex.). The securities fraud class action was brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who acquired stock in Xbiotech Inc. from April 15, 2015 to November 23, 2015. The complaint alleged that the putative class suffered losses by purchasing XBiotech's stock at prices artificially inflated by the company's materially misleading statements about its business, operations, and prospects, which was then followed by a precipitous loss in investment value once the misleading statements were revealed. Matthew Solis and Kresimir Corak filed separate motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel. Judge Sparks determined that Corak, who suffered a loss of approximately $735,864, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Solis' claimed a financial loss of only $8,109. Judge Sparks also found that Corak's claims satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Judge Sparks was also satisfied that Corak's selected counsels, namely: Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC as lead counsel and Abraham, Watkins, Nichol, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend as liaison counsel, are sufficiently qualified to represent the class. A full-text copy of Judge Spark's February 23, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/xsQyuofrom Leagle.com. Linh Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Peretz Bronstein -- peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gerwitz & Grossman, Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Ronald Dean Gresham, Gresham PC & Andrew L. Payne -- andy@paynemitchell.com -- Payne Mitchell Law Group, L.L.P.. Aaron Le, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Payne, Payne Mitchell Law Group, L.L.P., Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Ronald Dean Gresham, Gresham PC. Matthew Solis, Plaintiff, represented by Jamie Jean McKey -- jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group & Joe Kendall -- jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group, LLP. Mehul Rastogi, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E. Bilek, The Bilek Law Firm, LLP. Kresimir Corak, Plaintiff, represented by Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein Gerwitz & Grossman & Sammy Ford, IV, Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend. XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Quenna Han, Defendants, represented by Gerard G. Pecht -- gerard.pecht@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Fulbright & Jaworski & Peter Andrew Stokes -- peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP. * Judges Split Over FLSA, NYLL Liquidated Damages Issue ------------------------------------------------------- Glenn S. Grindlinger, Esq. -- ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com -- and Alexander W. Leonard, Esq. -- aleonard@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rotschild, LLP, in an article for New York Law Journal, report that generally, in New York state, in wage and hours suits, plaintiffs allege violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Both statutes permit prevailing plaintiffs to recover compensatory damages (usually back wages), their reasonable attorney fees and costs and liquidated damages. Whether a successful plaintiff can recover liquidated damages simultaneously under the FLSA and NYLL is an open issue in New York. In 2010, the legislature passed and the governor signed into law, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA). Effective April 9, 2011, the WTPA increased liquidated damages that may be awarded in wage and hour cases for violations of the NYLL from 25 percent of the underlying back wages owed to 100 percent of the back wages owed and made liquidated damages virtually automatic unless the defendant could prove that it acted in good faith compliance with the law. In other words, after the enactment of the WTPA, for every dollar in back pay owed to a successful plaintiff for violations of the NYLL, the defendant would also likely have to pay the plaintiff an additional dollar in liquidated damages under New York law. Under the FLSA, successful plaintiffs can also recover liquidated damages equal to 100 percent of the back pay owed and like the NYLL, the burden is on the defendant to prove that it acted in good faith compliance with the FLSA to avoid liquidated damages. Thus, after the enactment of the WTPA, for the first time, the liquidated damage provision under the NYLL appeared to mirror the liquidated damage provision under the FLSA. As most wage and hour practitioners in New York are acutely aware, the plaintiffs' bar has naturally championed applying both sets of liquidated damages to violations covered by both statutes. This permits successful plaintiffs to potentially recover treble damages (i.e., up to 200 percent liquidated damages in addition to any underlying wage liability) in wage and hour litigations, thereby multiplying the recovery available for even relatively minor, technical violations of the NYLL and FLSA. At the time the WTPA was enacted, practitioners and commentators forecasted these arguments, warning potential "double recovery" theories would be advocated by the plaintiffs' bar, in addition to the robust remedies already available, such as attorney fees that may be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff. There was certainly a reasonable argument for such cumulative liquidated damages, as federal and state court decisions prior to the enactment of the WTPA (when liquidated damages were only 25 percent under the NYLL) often permitted the recovery of liquidated damages under both statutes (i.e., 125 percent liquidated damages). The theory used by such courts was that liquidated damages under the FLSA were "compensatory" in nature (i.e., meant to compensate the employee for the time he or she was without his or her wages) whereas liquidated damages under the NYLL were "punitive" (i.e., meant to punish and deter employers from engaging in future wage violations). After the enactment of the WTPA, it was assumed that these theories concerning the nature of liquidated damages under both statutes would continue and treble damages might be awarded, thus providing a windfall for successful plaintiffs and further promoting the increase in wage and hour litigation that has occurred over the past decade. Yet, since the enactment of the WTPA, a split of authority has developed in New York federal and state courts concerning the award of liquidated damages under the FLSA and NYLL. Initially, many courts appeared to allow the simultaneous application of both FLSA and NYLL liquidated damages, thus resulting in the application of 200 percent liquidated damages. These courts reasoned that, under existing case law, both statutes still served differing purposes, and noted that nothing had fundamentally changed regarding either statute other than simply increasing the liquidated damages recovery available under the NYLL. However, even in 2011, seeds of dissent were already sprouting given the obvious windfall this handed to plaintiffs. Some courts aptly noted that since liquidated damages under the NYLL now mirrored the FLSA, both sets of liquidated damages effectively "serve the same purpose and have the same practical effect of deterring wage violations and compensating underpaid workers." This "practical effect" argument lingered as some judges, then in the minority,8 refused to allow double liquidated damages. These judges found that the purported distinction between liquidated damages under the NYLL and FLSA was illusory since both remedies were identical. Despite this split of authority, no appellate court has yet to weigh in and settle whether both forms of liquidated damages may be recovered simultaneously. Thus, over the past several years, the courts have reversed course from the initial bevy of federal and state court decisions applying 200 percent liquidated damages. Countless applications seeking 200 percent liquidated damages have since been denied by numerous judges who find such recoveries to be duplicative and unnecessary. These courts continue to reason that "[b]oth forms of damages seek to deter wage-and-hour violations in a manner calculated to compensate the [plaintiff]." Even judges that still apply both NYLL and FLSA liquidated damages together have noted the recent trend away from granting 200 percent liquidated damages.12 In fact, in some instances judges have begun abrogating their own precedent, and now embrace the view that double liquidated damages under both the NYLL and FLSA are inappropriate given the similarities between both statutes. Today, the prevailing view appears to be that applying liquidated damages remedies under both the NYLL and FLSA results in "a windfall that neither the state nor the federal legislature appears explicitly to have intended." Some courts have gone even further and held that applying pre- judgment interest pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. S5004 is inappropriate as well since such interest serves an identical purpose to the FLSA. Therefore, pre-judgment interest cannot be awarded where FLSA liquidated damages are also available.15 It is certainly difficult to speculate as to the impetus for this sudden reversal by the courts. Perhaps the Second Circuit's recent increased scrutiny of wage and hour cases in the seminal Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House in 2015 sparked this trend.16 Alternatively, perhaps this trend is a backlash to the record- breaking filings of wage and hour cases in recent years that have clogged federal dockets. Regardless of the reason, there are strong trends within the judiciary to oppose 200 percent liquidated damages for prevailing plaintiffs in FLSA and NYLL litigations. While much remains to be seen as to how the split among the lower court judges will be resolved over the next few years, and/or if an appellate court will weigh in on the subject, as of now it is clear that a multitude of judges reject treble damages for wage and hour violations in New York. Indeed some plaintiffs' attorneys have begun forgoing such cumulative claims altogether given this recent trend. Now that the initial proliferation of duplicative damages under the NYLL and FLSA has been counterbalanced, practitioners can also expect the defense bar to increasingly reject redundant liquidated damages claims. This is especially true now that some judges who have previously approved both forms of liquidated damages are more recently rejecting such windfall recoveries. ********* 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 * * *