/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160322.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 58
Headlines
ABC CORP: "Calle" Suit Seeks Unpaid & Minimum Wages Under FLSA
ADVANCED DESIGN: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Jiao" Suit Claims
AES CORP: Environmental Suit Remand Not Required Under CAFA
AFNI INC: Faces Mordechai Palace Class Action in New York Ct.
AMAZON.COM LLC: "Harris" Antitrust Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
AMERICA'S INTERNATIONAL: Violated FLSA, "Andrade" Suit Claims
AMERICAN ASSOC FOR JUSTICE: Offered to Settle, Plaintiff Says
AMPACET OHIO LLC: "Hicks" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
ARIZONA: Court Says Proper Procedure Followed in Gender Bias Suit
ARIZONA: Class May Seek Attorney Fees, Lawyer Tells 9th Cir.
BAMA JAPANESE: Faces "Kim" Class Action in Alabama
BANK OF AMERICA: Chicago Title Sues Over Breach of Contract
BANK OF AMERICA: "Rothbaum" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages
BAYER CONSUMER HEALTH: Violated NYGBL, "Kommer" Suit Claims
BELL MATTRESS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wages
BENCO DENTAL: Violated Sherman Act, "Shaystehfar" Suit Claims
BENCO DENTAL: Violated Sherman Act, "West" Suit Claims
BILOXI, MS: Reaches Agreement to Settle Debtors Prison Suit
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Finalizing Settlement in Employees Suits
CANADA: $2.2MM Spent in Legal Fees to Fight Benefits Class Action
CHARLES SCHWAB: Claims in Total Bond Market Fund Case Tossed
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeal in La. Horsemens' Purses Suit Pending
CLIFFS NATURAL: Faces Class Action Over Bond Exchange Offer
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Electrical Workers" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Still Faces "Warren" Action in Missouri
COMPUTERTEL INC: Violated TCPA, "Mills" Suit Claims
CONSOLIDATED CONTAINER: Violated CLC, "Castillo" Suit Claims
CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Violated ERISA, Encompass Suit Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: SDNY Court Narrows Claims in RMBS Suit
DOONEY & BOURKE: Faces "Rael" Suit in California
DOVEX FRUIT: "Carranza" Suit Seeks Damages Under AWPA
DOVEX FRUIT: "Carranza" Suit Seeks Damages, Overtime Pay
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Spiegel" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to D. Mass.
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cooper" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Mass.
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guarino" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill to Mass.
EA QUINN LANDSCAPE: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Athletes Set to Receive Settlement Payments
EQUIFAX INC: Awaits 9th Cir. Ruling in Bankruptcy Discharge Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Mines Data Off Cancer Sites, "Smith" Suit Claims
FANDUEL INC: "Genchanok" Suit Moved from E.D. La. to Boston
FANDUEL INC: "Gomez" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Massachusetts
FIELDWOOD ENERGY: Fails to Pay OT, "Leboueuf" Suit Says
FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Unit Has Settlement with Daisy Inc.
FIFTH STREET: Issued Fraudulent IPO Offering Materials, Suit Says
FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT: "Accardi" Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
FRESH INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lip Balm Suit
G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces "Boller" Securities Class Action in New York
GENERAL MILLS INC: "Hamilton" Suit Filed in Dist. of Oregon
GILLETTE: Class Members' Bid to Challenge Settlement Pending
GOLDEN SANDS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GOLDEN TOKEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Castro" Suit Says
GREENE'S ENERGY GROUP: "Lee" Suit Seeks Compensation Under FLSA
GRUPPO CHIARELLO: Sued Over Sexual Harassment, Labor Violations
HERMES: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in Manhattan
HOME DEPOT: Data Breach Class Action Settlement Relatively Low
HONEST COMPANY: Soap Products Contain Skin Irritant, Suit Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert. Hearing in "Field" Case Adjourned
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dismissal of Contact Lens Claims Sought
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Defending Xarelto(R) Payors Class Action
JP MORGAN: "Beyea" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Ambers" Suit Over False Advertisement
KRAFT HEINZ: "Evans" Suit Asserts Product Mislabeling
JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Class Action Over Promotional Spam Texts
JANSSEN RESEARCH: "McWaters" Sues Over XARELTO (R) Effects
JULIAN BUILDERS: Fails to Pay OT, "Ramsey" Suit Says
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Gun Sights Class Action
LAS VEGAS LIMOUSINES: "Botezatu" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
LINC ENERGY: Class Action Mulled Over Coal Gasification Site
LINTECH ELECTRIC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Lythcott" Suit Claims
LIXI HOSPITALITY: Violated Labor Law, "Febres" Suit Claims
LKQ CORPORATION: "Magana-Mead" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits
LONE TREE CITY: "Clements" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
LOS ANGELES, CA: Lawyer Docs Still Privileged, Court Says
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Appeal in "Hart" Case Pending
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Motion in Bristol Village Case Pending
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Appeal in "Brown" Case Pending
LUXURY MOTORS: Violated NJCFA, "Jordone" Suit Claims
LYFT: Drivers to File Legal Objections to Class Action Settlement
MANCILLA CONTRACTORS: Violated FLSA & IMWL, "Cortez" Suit Claims
MARS INC: Appeal Filed in "Wirth" Class Action
MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Case Stayed Pending Appeal
MASIMO CORP: Appeal from Alabama Court's Decision Pending
MDL 2081: Proposed Trial Plan Was Due March 15
MDL 2672: "Esneault" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MDL 2672: "Martin" Suit Consolidated in California
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Roberts" Sues Over Vehicle Emissions
MILLER ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
MIZUHO BANK: Loses Bid to Move Mt Gox Class Action to Japan
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: "Carter" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Violated TCPA, "Carter" Suit Claims
MONSTER INC: Violated Warranty Act, "Grays" Suit Claims
MOTION PICTURE ASSOC: "Forsyth" Sues Over Smoking Scenes in Films
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: High Court Urged to Hear Likeness Case
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Executive Acknowledges Football-Brain Damage Link
NATIONAL RESPONSE: "Kelly" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Min. Wages
MIZUHO BANK: Loses Bid to Move Mt Gox Class Action to Japan
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: High Court Urged to Hear Likeness Case
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Executive Acknowledges Football-Brain Damage Link
NOODLES & CO: Violated FLSA & Wage Order, "Carter" Suit Claims
NORDSTROM INC: Watches Contain Inferior Parts, Suit Claims
NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay OT, "Arcadio" Suit Says
NUTIVA INC: "Jones" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
OILTANKING NORTH: Fails to Pay OT, "Porterie" Suit Says
OREGON: Owes $1.4-Bil. for Timber, 15 Counties Claim
PA HIGHER EDUCATION: "Poronsky" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages
PATTERSON CO: Violated Antitrust Law, Comfort Care Suit Claims
PRIDE MOBILITY: Suit to Test New Class Action Opt-Out Regime
PROVIDE COMMERCE: No Arbitration for "Long" Suit, Cal. App. Says
PUMPCO ENERGY: "Williams" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
PVH CORP: Violated UCL, FAL & CLRA, "Morrow" Suit Claims
PATELCO CREDIT: Violated CLC & IWCW, "Briones" Suit Claims
PATRIARCH PARTNERS: "Eisenstadt" Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y.
PIERCE MANUFACTURING: Violated WWPCL & FLSA, "Ehmann" Suit Claims
REA ENERGY: "Cessna" Suit Moved to W.D. Pa.
REDBACK COIL: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RESTORED SURFACES: "Wesner" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Ct.
SAINT-GOBAIN: Hoosick Officials to Start Flushing Out Pipes
SANTMYER OIL CO: Violated FLSA, "Wilson" Suit Claims
SC HEALTHCARE: "Folk" Suit Moved S. Car. Dist. Ct.
SEASONS HOSPICE: "Lopez" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
SPOKANE COUNTY: Faces "Keyes" Class Action Suit in S.D. Fla.
STANFORD GROUP: 5th Cir. Clears Lawyers from Ponzi Scheme Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: Underfills Venti Latte Cups by 25%, Suit Claims
STELLAR RECOVERY: "Knapp-Ellis" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
STEVE FOWLER: Faces Class Action Over Security Deposits
SUSSAQUE'S LLC: "Small" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA & FMWA
TELUS COMMS: To Appeal Certification of Non-Arbitrable Claims
TGI FRIDAYS: "Williams" Suit Seeks Vacation Pay Under IWPCA
TURN INC: May Settle "Zombie Cookies" Suit Through Arbitration
U.S. SILICA: 75 Products Liability Claims Pending as of Dec. 31
UNITED STATES: CAS, et al. Faces Sai Class Action in Calif. Ct.
UNUM GROUP: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
VANYTRAVEL INC: "Cascante" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
VEREIT INC: Seeks Dismissal of 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint
VEREIT INC: "Wunsch" Action Consolidated in New York
VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Esposito" Action
VEREIT INC: ARCT III Merger Litigation Dismissed
VEREIT INC: Appeal in CapLease Merger Case Still Pending
VEREIT INC: Appeal in Cole Litigation Denied
VEREIT INC: Settlement in Realistic Partners Case Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Case Pending in Ohio Court
VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Sued in North Carolina Court
VERISK ANALYTICS: Still Faces "Weber" Case in Missouri
VERISK ANALYTICS: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Dismissal
VERISK ANALYTICS: Served with "Halloran" Action in Conn.
VIDA JETS LLC: "Baldino" Suit Seeks Damages & Cost Under FLSA
WELLS FARGO: "Torio" Suit Seeks Damages Over Foreclosure
YAHOO! INC: Accord in Non-Users' Privacy Suit Has Initial OK
* Activists Call for Regulation of Cancer-Causing PFOA Amid Suits
* Class Rep Must be Diligent when Defendants File for Bankruptcy
*********
ABC CORP: "Calle" Suit Seeks Unpaid & Minimum Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Calle, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp. d/b/a La Marina
Bar Restaurant, Aida M. Rodriguez, John Doe and Jane Doe No. 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01008 (E.D.N.Y., February 29,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
La Marina Bar Restaurant owns and operates a restaurant in Corona
located at Corona, New York. The Company had gross sales in excess
of $500,000 per year.
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
ADVANCED DESIGN: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Jiao" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Fang Qing Jiao, Wen Zhi Zhang, Jing Zhang, Wen Bo Jiang, Xiao Ming
Guo, Chang Long Yu, Huai Wei Dou, individually and on behalf all
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Advanced
Design Management Corp., d/b/a Focus Design Group, Michael Rua,
Steve Yeung (a.k.a. Yang), Zhi Ming Hao, John Doe and Jane Doe No.
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01006 (E.D.N.Y., February
29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).
Advanced Design Management is an interior construction company
with its principal place of business at Flushing, New York.
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
AES CORP: Environmental Suit Remand Not Required Under CAFA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq., and Kevin Ranlett, Esq., of Mayer
Brown, in an article for the law firm's Class Defense Blog,
reports that although the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA)
permits most significant class actions to be heard in federal
court, the law requires district courts to remand so-called "local
controversies" to state court. A "local controversy" is a class
action in which "greater than two-thirds of the members of the
proposed classes" are "citizens" of the forum state and at least
one defendant "from whom significant relief is sought" and whose
"alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims
asserted" is also a "citizen" of that state. 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(4).
In an effort to come within this exception, plaintiffs' lawyers
sometimes will limit the putative class to citizens of a
particular state and will attempt to portray an in-state defendant
as a significant player in the alleged wrong.
Defendants have multiple strategies for resisting these attempts
to evade federal jurisdiction. For example, sometimes the in-
state defendant is merely a bit player rather than a "significant"
one. Federal courts have made clear that CAFA's "local
controversy" exception bars the old tactic of defeating diversity
jurisdiction by adding a minor local defendant to destroy complete
diversity.
The Tenth Circuit's recent decision in Reece v. AES Corp. makes
clear that plaintiffs must also be held to their burden of proving
that greater than two-thirds of the class members are actually
citizens of the forum state. Reece involves a class action
challenging the manner in which fracking waste was disposed.
Although the plaintiffs suggested that the putative class
consisted primarily of Oklahoma landowners, the Tenth Circuit
pointed out that not all landowners are necessarily citizens --
particularly because many putative class members would have become
citizens of other states during the 20-year class period. The
court also criticized the plaintiffs for failing to submit the
data underlying their assertions that the landowners actually
lived in Oklahoma.
AFNI INC: Faces Mordechai Palace Class Action in New York Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afni, Inc. The case
is captioned Mordechai Palace, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Afni, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01004 (E.D.N.Y., February 29, 2016).
Afni provides contact center, receivables management, insurance,
and portfolio purchasing solutions to Fortune 1000 companies in
telecommunications, insurance, financial services, and government
industries in the United States. It offers customer acquisition
services, such as credit application screening, service
activation, database marketing, multichannel campaigns, and sales
confirmation programs; customer care services, including order
processing, technical support/help desk, billing inquiry, and
first party collections; and customer retention services, such as
win back, loyalty campaigns, save and retention outsourcing, and
disconnect recovery programs. The company is based in Bloomington,
Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791 4400
Facsimile: (516) 791 4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
AMAZON.COM LLC: "Harris" Antitrust Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harris v. Amazon.com, LLC, Case
No. BC606984, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior
Court - Central District, 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-00967 to the
proceeding.
Amazon.Com was founded in 2001. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of products by television, catalog, and
mail-order. The Company is based in Seattle, Washington.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Harris, Esq.
PRO SE
AMERICA'S INTERNATIONAL: Violated FLSA, "Andrade" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria S. Andrade, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. America's International Trade Services, Inc., and
Jorge J. Sam, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-0731-
RNS (S.D. Fla., Miami Div., February 29, 2016), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
America's International Trade Services is a full service freight
forwarder, specializing in imports, exports, freight consolidation
and logistics solutions, mostly for trade between South America,
the Caribbean and the United States. The Company is based in Dade
County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446 1500
Facsimile: (305) 446 1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
AMERICAN ASSOC FOR JUSTICE: Offered to Settle, Plaintiff Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Forbes, reports that a class action
defense attorney whose strategy was panned as unfair by a national
trial lawyers group doesn't blame the organization if it used the
same defense to thwart a telemarketing class action it faced -- as
was alleged by one of its members.
Michael Mallow, Esq. -- mmallow@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin's
Consumer Class Action Defense practice in Los Angeles, represented
Campbell-Ewald Co. in a case that eventually went before the U.S.
Supreme Court. While fighting a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
lawsuit, his client offered to compensate the named plaintiff in
full for the one allegedly unsolicited text he received before the
case could become a full-blown class action.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that offer couldn't moot the
class action, the American Association for Justice -- a lobbying
group for plaintiffs lawyers formerly known as the Association of
Trial Lawyers of America -- celebrated.
However, weeks before that decision, one of the AAJ's own members
had accused it of employing the same class action defense.
"There is a certain irony to it, but it didn't bother me,"
Mr. Mallow said. "Whoever was advising them was giving them good
counsel."
The AAJ had been a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Miami attorney
Timothy Blake, who alleged he'd received a fax in violation of the
TCPA.
Mr. Blake, who wrote in his 2014 complaint that he's been a member
of AAJ for more than three decades, said the fax didn't contain an
opt-out notice.
The AAJ made a Rule 68 offer of judgment in December to Blake. It
offered Blake an amount equal to or greater than what he was
requesting as an individual, though Mr. Blake wished to continue
the lawsuit as the lead plaintiff of a class.
AMPACET OHIO LLC: "Hicks" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Hicks and Bryan Fleshman, and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Ampacet Ohio, LLC, and Ampacet Sales
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00182-MHW-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, Eastern Div., February 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
Ampacet produces plastics color and additive concentrates
including slip agents, UV inhibitors, anti-fogs and foaming
agents. The Company is a Limited Liability Company registered to
do business in Ohio and conducts business in the Southern District
of Ohio. Ampacet is headquartered in Tarrytown, New York.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610 4134
Facsimile: (513) 826 9311
E-mail: Greg.Mansell@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com
Carrie.Dyer@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com
ARIZONA: Court Says Proper Procedure Followed in Gender Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and a related Arizona agency
followed proper procedure in suing a prison operator for unlawful
sex discrimination on behalf of a class of female correctional
officers, the Ninth Circuit held March 14.
Reversing a lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit found that the civil rights enforcement agencies
adequately conciliated with the GEO Group Inc. before suing the
company, as required by federal and state laws. The agencies
described how a class of female prison guards were subjected to
discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and they engaged with
the company in a formal mediation session in an attempt to resolve
their claims. That is all that's required under recent U.S.
Supreme Court precedent, the appeals court said.
It also ruled that the EEOC and the Arizona Civil Rights Division
both satisfy their pre-suit conciliation requirements in class
action litigation when they try to conciliate "on behalf of an
identified class of individuals," as they did here. The agencies
don't need to attempt to conciliate the claim of each class
member, the court said.
All potential class members who allege they were subjected to bias
on or after 300 days before the original charging party filed with
the EEOC may participate in the lawsuit, the court added. It
further held that any individual employee isn't required to have
filed a new charge if her allegations are "already encompassed
within" the ACRD's investigative finding, or if it's "like or
reasonably related to" the allegations in the original charge.
The decision reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Mach
Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645, 126 FEP Cases 1521 (2016),
that although EEOC conciliation efforts are subject to court
review, such review is limited.
In addition, the Ninth Circuit joins three other federal appeals
courts in holding that the EEOC isn't required to conciliate each
prospective class member's individual claim on an individual basis
prior to filing a class action lawsuit.
EEOC Pleased With Ruling
In a statement to Bloomberg BNA March 14, EEOC General Counsel P.
David Lopez said the commission is "very pleased with the Ninth
Circuit's decision."
He said the ruling "allows the EEOC to proceed with its claims
that twenty female corrections officers experienced sexual
harassment and retaliation while they worked at two prisons
operated by the Geo Group. This ruling means that the victims,
who were brave enough to step forward and participate in the
EEOC's lawsuit, will now have their day in court."
GEO Group declined to comment March 14 when contacted by Bloomberg
BNA.
The original charge in the case was filed by Alice Hancock, a
correctional officer at the Arizona State Prison, Florence West
Facility. She alleged that Sgt. Robert Kroen grabbed her crotch
and pinched her vagina and that GEO Group failed to remedy the
harassment after she filed an incident report.
Hancock further alleged that in retaliation, three of her co-
workers complained that she made an offensive comment, causing her
to be suspended without pay for 15 days. She ultimately was fired
three months after filing her discrimination charge.
The ACRD investigated Hancock's charge and found evidence
substantiating her allegations. It also found evidence that male
supervisors had "created an offensive and hostile work environment
based on gender that adversely affected Hancock and a class of
female employees working at the facility," and that GEO Group
didn't take reasonable measures to prevent and correct the
harassment.
The state agency sued in Arizona state court, and the case was
later removed to federal court. The U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of GEO
Group, and the EEOC and the ACRD appealed.
Four Issues on Appeal
Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan said the agencies raised four issues
on appeal, including the proper scope of agency conciliation under
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Arizona Civil
Rights Act.
Also at issue, she said, were when Title VII's 300-day limitations
period starts to run in an EEOC class action; whether an aggrieved
employee in an EEOC class action is required to file a new charge
of discrimination for acts that occur after the agency's
reasonable cause determination has been issued; and whether one of
the aggrieved employees on whose behalf the agencies sued
presented triable issues of hostile work environment harassment.
Finding in favor of the agencies on all four questions, the Ninth
Circuit revived their claims. On the issue of the proper scope of
conciliation, it cited Mach Mining in finding the agencies' pre-
suit efforts were adequate.
The EEOC and the ACRD in the reasonable cause determination sent
to the company made reference to a "class" of female employees who
were subjected to discrimination, harassment and retaliation at
the Florence West and another GEO facility. They also invited GEO
Group to conciliate, and during a formal mediation session, they
proposed a settlement that included damages, injunctive relief and
a class fund for unnamed class members, Judge Callahan found.
The appeals court also found support in Mach Mining for its
holding that the EEOC and state agencies satisfy their pre-suit
conciliation obligations in class actions when they try to
conciliate on behalf of an identified class of individuals prior
to suing, rather than attempt to conciliate each class member's
claim individually. In Mach Mining, it said, the Supreme Court
ruled that the EEOC is only required to identify what the employer
did that was illegal and which employees or what class of
employees were discriminated against.
That conclusion is consistent with the EEOC's broad enforcement
powers as well as prior holdings by the Third, Fourth and Sixth
circuits, Callahan added.
Charge Date Sets Class Period
The appeals court said the lower court also erred in finding that
the date of the ACRD's reasonable cause determination, rather than
the date of Hancock's charge, was the proper date for measuring
the timeliness of each individual class member's claims.
As in class actions brought by private plaintiffs, the starting
date of a class action is the date the original charging party
filed her charge, the Ninth Circuit ruled.
"Nothing in the text of the statute supports the district court's
imputation of the employee's time limit into the EEOC's duty to
notify the employer of the results of its investigation," Callahan
wrote.
Judges Stephen Reinhardt and A. Wallace Tashima joined the
opinion.
EEOC attorneys in Washington represented the commission. The
state attorney general's office represented Arizona. Littler
Mendelson P.C. represented GEO Group.
ARIZONA: Class May Seek Attorney Fees, Lawyer Tells 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class that won an early grant of summary judgment in a dispute
over copayments to Arizona's Medicaid program, only to lose the
case later, still deserves to receive attorney fees, an attorney
for the class argued March 17, before the Ninth Circuit.
In 2012, a class action claimed Arizona was forcing adults without
minor children to pay copayments exceeding the "nominal" co-pays
authorized by the federal Medicaid Act. According to the class,
Arizona's Medicaid program -- Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System -- approved "mandatory and heightened" copayments as part
of a demonstration project for beneficiaries who do not have a
minor child living with them. The project, which was approved for
five years on Oct. 21, 2011, also expanded the number of people
covered under AHCCS.
U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell found for the class in
February 2013, ruling that then-Secretary of Health and Human
Services Kathleen Sebelius violated the Administrative Procedure
Act by failing to consider and address plaintiffs' evidence.
Campbell ordered Sebelius to find whether the project was an
experimental pilot or demonstration project, if the copayments
would help the project, and the length of the project.
In April 2013, Sebelius reaffirmed the project, and Campbell later
found in her favor.
Campbell denied the class attorney fees in January 2014, ruling
that under the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sole v. Wyner
"a plaintiff who gains a preliminary injunction after an
abbreviated hearing, but is denied a permanent injunction after a
dispositive adjudication on the merits, does not qualify as a
'prevailing party'" eligible for attorney fees.
Richard Rothschild, of the Western Center on Law and Poverty and
an attorney for plaintiffs, argued March 17 that since plaintiffs'
won summary judgment in 2013, they should receive attorney fees
even if Campbell later found for Sebelius.
"That victory pushed plaintiffs well above the low threshold for
the prevailing party status," Rothschild said.
U.S. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown questioned whether the
federal court's retention of jurisdiction in the case affected
whether plaintiffs should have received attorney fees.
"You are the prevailing party under your theory, but I think what
we have to wrestle with is what the retention of jurisdiction
means here," McKeown said.
"The question of whether a plaintiff is a prevailing party ... is
not a formulistic one," Rothschild. "It's a practical inquiry."
Sushma Soni, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice,
argued that the plaintiffs' failure to appeal any decision by
Campbell until he denied them attorney fees is indication that
they should not be granted an award.
"The district court made a final determination of the claim
against the secretary, went point by point through all the
plaintiffs' arguments ... and rejected them," Soni said.
McKeown asked Soni whether Rothschild's argument that plaintiffs
were the prevailing party was valid.
"What we have here is a determination that is arbitrary and
capricious," McKeown said. "The secretary goes back and does it
right . . . why isn't that procedural victory from a prevailing
party?"
"For one thing your honor, they never asked for a remand," Soni
answered.
U.S. Circuit Judges Richard Tallman and Kim McLane Wardlaw also
participated in the hearing.
BAMA JAPANESE: Faces "Kim" Class Action in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
Kameron Kim, Plaintiff, v. Bama Japanese Steakhouse, Inc. d/b/a
Kobe Japanese Steak and Sushi Bar, and Jason Yon, Defendants, Case
No. 7:16-cv-00337-TMP (N.D. Ala., February 25, 2016), seeks unpaid
back wages, overtime pay and unlawful kickbacks, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Defendants own and operate a Japanese Steak and Sushi Bar under
the name Kobe Japanese Steak and Sushi Bar located at 1800
McFarland Blvd East, Suite 304, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35404, where
the Plaintiff was employed as a server. Kim claims to have
received below minimum wages rates, did not receive overtime pay
and was withheld portion of their tips.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Hughes, Esq.
HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
2121 14th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Tel: (205) 523-0463
Fax: (205) 344-6188
E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Chicago Title Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Title Land Trust Company as successor trustee to Chicago
Title and Trust Company, a/t/u/t, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bank of America
N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02161 (N.D. Ill., Chicago,
February 11, 2016), seeks to recover damages and relief as a
result of Breach of Contract committed by the Defendant.
Bank of America operates as full service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment
services for the public. The bank serves individual and
institutional customers throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth David Flaxman, Esq.
EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES P.C.
135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641 2600
Facsimile: (312) 641 0360
E-mail: kflaxman@joycelaw.com
- and -
Michael H. Moirano, Esq.
Claire Gorman Kenny, Esq.
MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY, LLC
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3025
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 614 1260
E-mail: mmoirano@mgklaw.com
cgkenny@mgklaw.com
- and -
Arthur W. Aufmann, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE
& ASSOCIATES P.C.
135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641 2600
E-aaufmann@joycelaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: "Rothbaum" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Garry Rothbaum, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), the
Defendant, Case No. 651044/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct, County of New York,
February 29, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages for
Defendant's repeated breaches of contract, pursuant to New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR).
The Defendant allegedly breached its obligations to apply
the entire amount of prepayments against Plaintiff outstanding
principle balance and to apply the Prepayments without penalty.
Instead, BANA routinely misapplied Prepayments, applying less than
100% of the amount of the Prepayments to Plaintiff's outstanding
principal amounts and improperly applied a portion of the
Prepayments.
Bank of America operates as full service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment
services for the public. The bank serves individual and
institutional customers throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
PARADIS LAW GROUP, PLLC
200 W. 41st Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 986 4500
Facsimile: (212) 986 4501
BAYER CONSUMER HEALTH: Violated NYGBL, "Kommer" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Kommer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bayer Consumer Health, a division of
Bayer AG, and MSD Consumer Care, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
7:16-cv-01560 (S.D.N.Y., February 29, 2016), seeks redress, under
New York General Business Law (NYGBL), for Defendants' deceptive
marketing practices in connection with the sale of Dr. Scholl's
"Custom Fit Orthotic" inserts.
The Defendants allegedly advertised and deceptively marketed the
Inserts as supposedly customized for the consumer's feet, yet they
are standardized factory-manufactured inserts which cannot and do
not compare to a custom orthotic device, which is tailored to the
specific measurements of each of a patient's feet, individually.
Bayer Consumer provides consumer health care products. The
company's products include over-the-counter medications and
nutritional supplements that include analgesics, cough/cold,
dermatologicals, gastrointestinals, and nutritionals. It offers
its nutritional products worldwide. The company was founded in
1994 and is based in Basel, Switzerland.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Denlea, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Robert J. Berg, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 331-0100
BELL MATTRESS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan L. Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Bell Mattress, Inc., Daniel
Zamora, individually and Flor Zamora, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-20693-KAM (S.D. Fla. Cir., February 25, 2016),
seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for breach of contract.
Bell Mattress is a Florida corporation selling mattresses where
Plaintiff worked as a sales employee. He claims to have received
sub-minimum wage rates and did not receive overtime compensation
for hours in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Militzok, Esq.
MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
Wells Fargo Building
4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
Hollywood, FL 33021
Tel: (954) 780-8228
Fax: (954) 719-4016
Email: bjm@militzoklaw.com
BENCO DENTAL: Violated Sherman Act, "Shaystehfar" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mojdeh Shaystehfar, D.D.S., d/b/a Linden Dental Care, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., and Benco Dental
Supply Company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00692 (E.D.N.Y.,
February 9, 2016), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief
under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Defendants allegedly conspired to eliminate competition and to
raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices for dental supplies sold
to customers.
Henry Schein, Inc. is the largest distributor of dental supplies
in the United States. Henry Schein is incorporated in Delaware,
and its principal place of business is in Melville, Long Island,
New York. Patterson Companies, Inc. is the second largest
distributor of dental supplies in the United States. Patterson is
incorporated in Minnesota, and its principal place of business is
in St. Paul, Minnesota. Benco is incorporated in Delaware, and its
principal place of business is in Pittston, Pennsylvania. The
Defendants sell dental supplies to dental practices and
laboratories nationwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
John A. Kehoe, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE, LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
Email: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
jak@pritzkerlevine.com
BENCO DENTAL: Violated Sherman Act, "West" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
West LA Dental Health Center on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patterson Companies, Inc.,
Henry Schein, Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Company, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00666 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2016),
seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Antitrust Act and Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Defendants allegedly conspired to eliminate competition and to
raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices for dental supplies sold
to customers.
Henry Schein, Inc. is the largest distributor of dental supplies
in the United States. Henry Schein is incorporated in Delaware,
and its principal place of business is in Melville, Long Island,
New York. Patterson Companies, Inc. is the second largest
distributor of dental supplies in the United States. Patterson is
incorporated in Minnesota, and its principal place of business is
in St. Paul, Minnesota. Benco is incorporated in Delaware, and its
principal place of business is in Pittston, Pennsylvania. The
Defendants sell dental supplies to dental practices and
laboratories nationwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Klafter, Esq.
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
Two International Dr, Ste 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934 9000
Facsimile: (914) 934 9220
BILOXI, MS: Reaches Agreement to Settle Debtors Prison Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Perez, writing for Sun Herald, reports that "Settle it,"
Biloxi Councilman George Lawrence said on March 15 before the
council voted 7-0 to approve the terms of a settlement of a
federal lawsuit and pay $75,000 for damages and legal costs.
Although the council approved the settlement on March 15, the
lawsuit had been dismissed March 7 by Magistrate Judge John
Gargiulo in U.S. District Court.
In the settlement, the city admits no wrongdoing in the case that
alleges Biloxi was jailing people who could not pay fines in
traffic and other misdemeanor cases.
The city did agree to make several changes in its court
department:
-- The city will immediately stop jailing people for nonpayment
of a fine.
-- Biloxi will no longer use probation companies to collect fines
as of June 1.
-- A full-time public defender was hired to represent the
indigent charged with nonpayment.
-- No additional fees will be charged to people who enter into
repayment plans or perform community service.
-- People who are fined or stop paying their fine will be given
an "ability to pay hearing" to determine how much they can afford
to contribute.
-- Those who can't pay fines, court costs or restitution can have
their fines waived by a judge, be given community service or
complete a jobs training course, drug treatment, counseling or
mental health program.
-- Printed cards detailing the court procedures will be provided
to each person.
Biloxi City Attorney Gerald Blessey said it will cost the city
$344,000 a year for the additional staff needed to implement these
changes. He said the city will get some return on that investment
from community service.
He said the agreement will be a model that can be used by other
cities in South Mississippi and across the country.
Nusrat Choudhury, attorney for the Southern Center for Human
Rights, agrees.
"These reforms do so much for the people of Biloxi," she said. The
city has taken a strong stand on eliminating for-profit probation
companies that impose additional fees when a person can't pay the
fine, she said.
"Those companies and those fees have been eliminated," she said.
The city also agreed to suspend on or before June 15 all payment
agreements more than two years old that haven't been collected and
hold a new compliance hearing for those whose failure-to-pay
notices are less than two years old.
What made this suit different than a similar agreement reached
with the ACLU in Gulfport about a decade ago was the $75,000 fee
Biloxi will pay to settle the suit. Ms. Choudhury said three
named plaintiffs brought claims against Biloxi. They will receive
a total of $50,000 and the additional $25,000 will cover legal
fees incurred from the lawsuit.
The ACLU has identified additional Mississippi cities that are
jailing people without representation and charging them fees, she
said.
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Finalizing Settlement in Employees Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2015, that the Company is in
process of finalizing the settlement agreement of a class action
lawsuit by employees.
On October 4, 2013, two then-current employees (the "Nevada
Plaintiffs") filed a purported collective action lawsuit against
the Company, OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, and two of its
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(Cardoza, et al. v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:13-
cv-01820-JAD-NJK). The complaint alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by requiring employees to work off the clock,
complete on-line training without pay, and attend meetings in the
restaurant without pay. The nationwide collective action permitted
all hourly employees in all Outback Steakhouse restaurants to
join. The suit seeks an unspecified amount in back pay for the
employees that joined the lawsuit, an equal amount in liquidated
damages, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. The Nevada
Plaintiffs also filed a companion lawsuit in Nevada state court
alleging that the Company violated the state break time rules.
In November 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement
agreement resolving all claims and the cost of class
administration for $3.2 million. The Company is in process of
finalizing the settlement agreement, which will then be submitted
to the court for approval. Court approval is required before any
settlement agreement between the parties becomes final.
Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Scott Schrager, Esq. --
bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Eric Levinrad, Esq. --
elevinrad@wrslawyers.com -- WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN &
RABKIN, LLP, Jason J. Thompson,Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com &
Jesse L. Young, Esq. -- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ,
P.C., Timothy J. Becker, Esq. -- tbecker@johnsonbecker.com --
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- JOHNSON
BECKER, PLLC
Defendants are represented by Catherine A. Conway, Esq. --
cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps, Jr, Esq. --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Kevin
David Johnson, Esq. -- kjohnson@tsghlaw.com & Marquis William
Heilig, Esq. -- mheilig@tsghlaw.com -- THOMPSON, SIZEMORE,
GONZALEZ & HEARING, PA
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. is a casual dining restaurant company. It
owns Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill
and Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar.
CANADA: $2.2MM Spent in Legal Fees to Fight Benefits Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Press, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
legal bill to fight a group of mothers who say they were
wrongfully denied sickness benefits continues to rise as the woman
at the centre of the battle waits for the Liberals to follow
through on a campaign pledge to end the fight.
Newly released figures show the federal government has spent more
than $2.2 million in legal fees fighting Calgary mother
Jennifer McCrea and thousands of other Canadians who are involved
in a class-action lawsuit over being denied sickness benefits
while they were on maternity leave.
Most of that -- $2.06 million -- has been through the federal
Justice Department with a further $176,377 estimated to have been
spent at Employment and Social Development Canada.
The figures are contained in documents tabled in Parliament in
response to a request from New Democrat MP Niki Ashton and show
the government added about $1 million to the overall legal bill
for the case in the last year.
"It's very upsetting that this legal bill is at $2.2 million and
that could have been . . . used to help out me as well as the
other many, many women that could use that benefit that we are
entitled to. It's extremely frustrating," Ms. McCrea said in a
telephone interview from Calgary.
That frustration, she said, could be gone in an instant if the
Liberals were to drop the legal challenge. The NDP promised to
end the fight within six months during the campaign, with the
Liberals telling the Toronto Star in early October that the party
would "immediately end" the court battle.
Ms. McCrea said she hasn't heard anything from the Liberals about
when they will follow through on the promise.
"Would we like to see more happening from them coming to talk to
us or anything like that? Absolutely we would love to see more
from them," said Ms. McCrea, 39.
The $450-million class-action lawsuit alleges the government
failed to pay sickness benefits to women who became ill while on
maternity leave even though the law said they were allowed it.
Parliament decided in 2002 to allow those who were diagnosed with
cancer, for instance, to access 15 extra weeks of EI payments on
top of their year of maternity leave.
Lawsuit claims 3,177 people denied benefits
Ms. McCrea's claim alleges that at least 3,177 people were denied
the benefit between 2002 and 2011, herself included.
Ms. McCrea who was diagnosed in July 2011 with breast cancer while
on maternity leave with her youngest son, Logan, who was eight
months at the time.
She had a double mastectomy in August 2011 and was deemed cancer
free shortly afterwards.
A settlement to the class-action lawsuit could cost the government
tens of millions of dollars, said Stephen Moreau, McCrea's
Toronto-based lawyer
The case has been ongoing now for about four years, and could take
another four years to get through a trial, Moreau said.
"I would tell you what the good reason is to pursue this kind of
fight vigorously, but I actually can't for the life of me
understand it," Mr. Moreau said of the government's position.
Labour Minister MaryAnn Mihychuk, who oversees the employment
insurance system, declined to comment, citing the ongoing court
case.
Ms. Ashton, the NDP's employment critic, said the dollar figures
should be a warning for the Liberal government to make immediate
changes to the EI system so that those who are eligible get
benefits.
"We've come out of a decade where the government time and time
again turned to litigation to get out of either meeting its
obligations or trying to find a solution for Canadians in a
collaborative way," Ms. Ashton said.
"I certainly hope that with a new government we'll see a new
approach on this front."
CHARLES SCHWAB: Claims in Total Bond Market Fund Case Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court has
dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims with prejudice in the Total
Bond Market Fund Litigation.
On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees as
defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claims
were dismissed.
On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district
court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further
proceedings. A petition by defendants for U.S. Supreme Court
review was denied on October 6, 2015.
In the interim, defendants filed a fourth amended complaint on
June 25, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss and on October 6, 2015,
the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's contractual claims,
but declined to dismiss certain of the claims for fiduciary
breach.
On February 23, 2016, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has 30 days in which to appeal.
The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding
company, headquartered in San Francisco, California.
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeal in La. Horsemens' Purses Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the
Louisiana Horsemens' Purses class action suit remains pending.
On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The petition defines the
"alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and
jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course &
Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first
effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008. The
petition alleges that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C.
("Fair Grounds") have collected certain monies through video draw
poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements
and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to
thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse
meets while La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those
supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen
during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets. The petition
requests that the Court declare that Fair Grounds violated La.
R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering
Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff
class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class
such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the
sums due to the plaintiff class.
On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds.
On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed exceptions to the
suit, including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking
referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission. By Judgment dated
November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the exception of
primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Louisiana
Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for
supervisory review of the Judgment. The Louisiana Racing
Commission requested and received memoranda from the parties in
the case on the issue of whether plaintiffs have standing to
pursue the claims against Fair Grounds.
On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the
plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue
the case. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Appeal of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No Right of
Action in the District Court seeking a reversal of the Louisiana
Racing Commission's ruling. The plaintiff's appeal is pending.
Churchill Downs Incorporated is a racing, gaming, and online
entertainment company.
CLIFFS NATURAL: Faces Class Action Over Bond Exchange Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reports that iron ore producer Cliffs Natural
Resources Inc.'s bondholders are suing the company over a bond
exchange offer in January. The legal action took place after the
Cliffs commodity prices went down and aimed at reducing the
company's debt.
According to CNBC, the plaintiffs accused Cliffs of only favoring
larger bondholders to participate in offering, while reducing the
worth of notes of bondholders who were not eligible to
participate. "The defendant's decision to pursue this transaction
benefiting only themselves and a minority of holders of class
notes violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing," the plaintiffs stated in a class action lawsuit.
Cliffs and other U.S. miners have been hit by a downfall in the
demand from steel mills. It is also triggered by the weak iron
ore prices due to excess supply from big miners such as Vale SA,
Rio Tinto Plc and BHP Billiton Plc, as reported by Reuters.
Two investors claimed, in a proposed class-action or group court
proceeding, that the company made a violation in the federal
securities law. The violation took place when it executed the
private debt exchange that only allowed a select group of
institutional bondholders to exchange their unsecured corporate
bonds for secured bonds.
Bloomberg claimed that it also wrongfully denied retail
bondholders an opportunity to participate. "As a result, class
members were not only precluded from participating in the exchange
offer, but were kept in the dark regarding defendant's view of the
exchange offer," as written in the complaint filed on March 14 in
Manhattan federal court.
The new notes Cliffs issued rank over the unsecured debt the
complainants hold, and in their court case, they mentioned that
the ruling only created "two classes of holders of class notes
with very unequal rights," as claimed by the complaint filed by
investors Gary Waxman and Leonard Hammerschalg.
Moreover, Intelligence analyst Richard Bourke stated that Cliffs'
debt exchange was the same with the "other distressed debt swaps
that offer structurally subordinate security holders the
opportunity to move up the capital structure." Cliffs Natural
increased over 15 percent on March 14 after it announced it will
start a key mine.
Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the company, Patricia Persico, did
not immediately respond to phone and e-mail messages after regular
business hours seeking comment on the court case. But the company
said that it will restart production of iron ore pellets at its
Northshore Mine in Minnesota by May 15.
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Electrical Workers" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., Patrick J. Mahaffy, Erle T. Mast, M.
James Barrett, Brian G. Atwood, James C. Blair, Paul Klingenstein,
Edward J. Mckinley, Scott D. Sandell, Forest Baskett, NEA Partners
13, L.P., NEA 13 GP, LTD, Aberdare Ventures IV, L.P., J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Mizuho Securities USA INC. and
Does 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV-537068, was removed
to United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division on February 25.
The Defendant allegedly failed to fully and accurately disclose
adverse material information regarding the Company to investors
thus resulting in the drop in the share prices.
Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing cancer treatments in the United
States, Europe and other international markets. Mahaffy is a co-
founder and President, CEO and a director of Clovis. Erle T. Mast
is Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 288-4545
Fax: (415) 288-4534
Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
David Conrad Walton
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-3301
Tel: (619) 231-1058
Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
James Ian Jaconette, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 231-1058
Email: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron C. Humes, Esq.
John F. Cannon, Esq.
90 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1015
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 321-6026
Fax: (415) 283-1446
Email: jcannon@sycr.com
ahumes@sycr.com
- and -
Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
Todd G. Cosenza, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 728-8000
Fax: (212) 728-8111
Email: tmundiya@willkie.com
tcosenza@willkie.com
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Still Faces "Warren" Action in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company will
defend itself vigorously in a customer class action complaint in
Missouri.
On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a purported class action
complaint against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri. The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank
(Case No. 1416-CV19197). In the case, the customer alleges
violation of the Missouri usury statute in connection with the
Bank charging overdraft fees in connection with point-of-
sale/debit and automated-teller machine cards. The case seeks
class-action status for Missouri customers of the Bank who may
have been similarly affected. The Company believes the complaint
lacks merit and will defend itself vigorously. The amount of any
ultimate exposure cannot be determined with certainty at this
time.
Commerce Bancshares, Inc., a bank holding company.
COMPUTERTEL INC: Violated TCPA, "Mills" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Steven Mills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Computertel, Inc. et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00968, (C.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2016),
seeks to recover damages and relief pursuant to Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Computertel provides long distance telecommunication services
around the world. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in
Carson City, Nevada.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Mills, Esq.
PRO SE
CONSOLIDATED CONTAINER: Violated CLC, "Castillo" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Castillo, individually and on behalves of other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Container
Company LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Citistaff Solutions
Inc., a California Corporation, and Does 1-25, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC-612168 (Cal. Super Ct., County of Los
Angeles, February 29, 2016), seeks to recover nominal damages,
compensatory damages, penalties, interest accrued to date, costs
of suit and expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees, and full
restitution and payment, pursuant to the California Labor Code
(CLC) and the California Business and Professions Code.
Consolidated Container Company manufactures and supplies rigid
plastic packaging solutions. It offers bottles and containers, as
well as rigid plastic containers made from polyethylene resin. The
company serves dairy, water, beverage, food, specialty chemical,
automotive, and nutrition markets. It provides its products
through distributors in the United States and internationally.
Consolidated Container Company LLC was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Young W. Ryu, Esq.
Kelly Kim, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU
9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (888) 365 8686
Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com
kelly.kim@ywrlaw.com
CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Violated ERISA, Encompass Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Indemnity Company, the Plaintiff, v. Keith M. Ingram,
Betty Ingram, Rhonda Michelle Goodfellow, on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated persons, Crittenden Hospital Association
d/b/a Crittenden Regional Hospital and Crittenden Memorial
Hospital, Eugene K. Cashman Jr., Jamie R. Carter, Jr., David G.
Baytos, David Raines, Jr., W. Brad Mccormick, Jason W. Collard,
Herchel F. Owens, Andrew Luttrell, Donna B. Lanier, Carol C.
Mccormack, Randall Catt, David Ford, Thomas F. Donaldson, Jr.,
William Johnson, Lannie L. Lancaster, Julio P. Ruiz, Sherry L.
London, Ness S. Sechrest, Randy R. Sullivan, Leven Williams, and
Simplifi Heal Th Management, LLC; and
Cigna Health And Life Insurance Company, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00066-DPM (E.D. Ark., Jonesboro Div., February 29, 2016),
seeks to recover damages sustained as a result of Defendants'
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and
the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
The suit alleged that the Defendants intentionally failed to fund
Crittenden Hospital Association's (CHA's) health benefit plan,
while at the same time deducting premiums for the plan from CHA's
employees.
Crittenden Regional Hospital provides a range of healthcare
services to residents in eastern Arkansas and west Tennessee. It
offers services in the areas of cardiac catheterization,
cardiology services, emergency services, homecare, occupational
services, UT pediatric density, outpatient services, and women's
health. Crittenden Regional Hospital was formerly known as
Crittenden Memorial Hospital and changed its name to Crittenden
Memorial Hospital in January 2011. The company was founded in 1951
and is based in West Memphis, Arkansas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian A. Brown, Esq.
James D. Burns, Esq.
LASER LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 S. Spring Street, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201-2488
Telephone: (501) 376 2981
Facsimile: (501) 376 2417
E-mail: Bbrown@laserlaw.com
Jburns@laserlaw.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: SDNY Court Narrows Claims in RMBS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Toyota Auto Receivables 2012-B Owner Trust said in its Form 10-D
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2016, for the monthly distribution period from
January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2016, that a New York court has
granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit involving Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas on
procedural grounds.
DBTCA, the indenture trustee under the indenture for the Toyota
Auto Receivables 2012-B Owner Trust transaction, has been named as
a defendant in civil litigation concerning its role as trustee of
certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. On
June 18, 2014, a group of investors ("Plaintiff Investors") filed
a civil action against DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company ("DBNTC") in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on
behalf of and for the benefit of 544 RMBS trusts asserting claims
for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach
of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on
DBTCA's and DBNTC's alleged failure to perform their obligations
as trustees for the trusts (the "NY Derivative Action"). An
amended complaint was filed on July 16, 2014, adding Plaintiff
Investors and RMBS trusts to the NY Derivative Action. On November
24, 2014, the Plaintiff Investors moved to voluntarily dismiss the
NY Derivative Action without prejudice.
Also on November 24, 2014, substantially the same group of
Plaintiff Investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and DBNTC
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "SDNY Action"), making substantially the same
allegations as the New York Derivative Action with respect to 564
RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue in the NY Derivative
Action). The SDNY Action is styled both as a derivative action on
behalf of the named RMBS trusts and, in the alternative, as a
putative class action on behalf of holders of RMBS representing
interests in those RMBS trusts.
On January 19, 2016, the court overseeing the SDNY Action granted
in part the defendants' motion to dismiss on procedural grounds:
as to the 500 trusts that are governed by pooling and servicing
agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court
did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in defendants'
motion to dismiss. The court further ordered plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint consistent with its ruling as to the remaining
64 trusts governed by indentures. The defendants will have an
opportunity to file new defensive motions with respect to the
amended complaint after it is filed. DBTCA intends to continue to
vigorously defend the SDNY Action.
DOONEY & BOURKE: Faces "Rael" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
Monica Rael, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated the Plaintiff, v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc. et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00371-JM-DHB (S.D. Cal., Feb 11,
2016), seeks to recover damages pursuant to the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
Dooney & Bourke, a Connecticut corporation, manufactures and
retails handbags and accessories. The company's products include
travel bags, watches, briefcases, wallets, totes, umbrellas,
business card holders, iPad cases, keyfobs, bracelets, phone
cases, hooded hats, rain boots, gloves, scarves, and belts. It
serves customers through its retail and factory stores, as well as
online. The company was incorporated in 1975 and is based in
Norwalk, Connecticut. It operates retail stores in Costa Mesa,
California; Honolulu, Hawaii; Las Vegas, Nevada; White Plains and
New York, New York; Dallas, Texas; Tokyo, Japan; and Taipa, Macau.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter. Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
& CARPENTER LLP
402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 756 6994
Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
DOVEX FRUIT: "Carranza" Suit Seeks Damages Under AWPA
-----------------------------------------------------
Mariano Carranza and Eliseo Martinez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Dovex Fruit
Company, the Defendant, Case No. Case 2:16-cv-00054-SAB (E.D.
Wash., February 25, 2016), seeks to recover damages, including
interest, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Washington employment law and the federal Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA).
Dovex Fruit Co. provides packing, storage, and shipping facilities
for apples, pears, organics, cherries, and stone fruits. The
company was founded in 1982 and is based in Wenatchee, Washington.
As of March 11, 2010, Dovex Fruit Company operates as a subsidiary
of Stemilt Growers Inc. The Company is based in Wenatchee,
Washington.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Marc C. Cote, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816 6603
E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
mcote@terrellmarshall.com
DOVEX FRUIT: "Carranza" Suit Seeks Damages, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Mariano Carranza and Eliseo Martinez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dovex Fruit
Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00282 (E.D. Wash., February
25, 2016), seeks enjoinment, actual damages or statutory damages,
compensatory and exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act.
Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of failing to provide rest breaks,
failing to pay for all work performed, failing to keep accurate
records of actual hours worked and failing to provide pay
statements with accurate statements of actual hours worked.
Carranza is a migrant agricultural worker for the Defendants at
their fruit farm, picking apples, pears, and cherries.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Marc C. Cote, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Tel: (206) 816-6603
Email: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
mcote@terrellmarshall.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Spiegel" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cody Spiegel et al v. DraftKings,
Inc. et al. Case No., 2:15-cv-08142, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10231-GAO to the proceeding.
DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer L Duffy, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER DUFFY, APC
28649 S. Western Ave. No. 6571
San Pedro, CA 90734
Telephone: (310) 714 9779
Facsimile: (213) 217 5010
E-mail: jduffy@kamberlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SEEGER & WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564 2300
E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David McDowell, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024
Telephone: (213) 892 5200
E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cooper" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cooper v. DraftKings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23870, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10240 to the
proceeding.
DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Todd Mathews. Esq.
GORI, JULIAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
156 N. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 659 9833
Facsimile: (618) 659 9834
E-mail: Todd@GoriJulianLaw.com
The Defendants is represented by:
Jorge David Guttman, Esq.
GUNSTER
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3500
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 376 6054
Facsimile: (305) 376 6010
E-mail: jguttman@gunster.com
- and -
Dennis P. Waggoner, Esq.
HILL, WARD & HENDERSON
Barnett Plaza
101 East Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33601
Telephone: (813) 221 3900
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guarino" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill to Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Guarino v. DraftKings, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01123, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10234-GAO to the proceeding.
DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Todd Mathews. Esq.
GORI, JULIAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
156 N. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 659 9833
Facsimile: (618) 659 9834
E-mail: Todd@GoriJulianLaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
SULLIVAN LAW, LLC
1814 E. Eagle Bay Dr.
Bloomington, IN 47401
Telephone: (314) 971 9353
E-mail: sullivcd@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Theodore J. MacDonald, Jr.
HEPLERBROOM LLC-ST. LOUIS
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Ste. 2700
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 241 6160
Facsimile: (314) 241 6116
E-mail: TJM@heplerbroom.com
- and -
W. Jason Rankin
HeplerBroom LLC - Edwardsville
130 North Main Street
P.O. Box 510
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307 1138
Facsimile: (618) 656 1364
E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com
EA QUINN LANDSCAPE: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Reyes and Julio Cesar Abreu, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. E.A. Quinn Landscape
Contracting, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00309 (D. Conn.,
February 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
compensatory damages and such other relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).
E.A. Quinn Landscape Contracting, Inc. is a Connecticut
Corporation located at 109 Commerce Street, Glastonbury,
Connecticut. Plaintiffs were employed as landscapers. They
regularly worked an average of 50 hours per week without being
paid overtime premium.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan Mahoney, Esq.
Kenneth J. Krayeske, Esq.
KENNETH J. KRAYESKE LAW OFFICES
1 Linden Place, Unit 107
Hartford, CT 06106
Tel: (860) 995-5842
Fax: (860) 760-6590
Email: attorney@brendanmahoney.com
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Athletes Set to Receive Settlement Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Makuch, writing for Gamespot, reports that with the $60
million settlement award already cleared by a judge, it's now time
for the college football and basketball players who appeared in EA
games from 2003 to 2014 to finally get paid. ESPN's Darren Rovell
reports that, of the total number of players who submitted claims
in the class-action suit, 24,819 players have valid claims. This
comes out to around $1,600 each, with the lawyers' 30 percent cut
taken out.
The identities of the former players has not been divulged.
However, the lead plaintiffs, including Ed O'Bannon, as well as
class-action representatives, will get paid quite a bit more.
From the ESPN report:
"Players will be paid based on what years' games they appeared in
(earlier years are worth less) and how they were used (photographs
or avatars are assigned more value than just a name or body
description on a roster).
"The lead plaintiffs -- former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon,
former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart and former Nebraska and
Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller -- will get the most money,
estimated to be $15,000 each. Twenty-one players, including
former Alabama wide receiver Tyrone Prothro, get $5,000 for being
class-action representatives."
EA and the NCAA ended their licensing deal in 2013, later
announcing that it had put it NCAA Football series on hold. The
most recent game in the series was 2013's NCAA Football 14. EA's
NCAA Basketball series, meanwhile, hasn't seen a new release since
2009's NCAA Basketball 10.
The voice of EA'a NCAA Football games, Kirk Herbstreit, recently
made waves for saying O'Bannon is ultimately to blame for the
cancellation of the NCAA Football series.
"Ed O'Bannon ruined that for all of us," he said. "And hopefully
we can get that fixed."
Mr. Herbstreit added that "every single college football player"
would be OK with getting a free copy of the game as compensation.
"That's the compensation that they would take," he said. "I've
never met one player in college football that's like: 'They can't
use my name and likeness! I need to be paid!' They're just
thrilled to be on the game. They love being on the game. It's
like the biggest highlight of their life, is to be on the game."
The fate of EA's NCAA football and basketball game franchises is
unclear.
EQUIFAX INC: Awaits 9th Cir. Ruling in Bankruptcy Discharge Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties are awaiting
a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
the litigation over Equifax's bankruptcy discharge recording
methods.
In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in
bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an
account following a bankruptcy discharge.
On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement
Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the
procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy
on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for
injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages.
On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-
notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011. The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.
On July 15, 2011, following another approval hearing, the District
Court approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting
plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for the settling
plaintiff and granted the motion of counsel for the settling
plaintiffs' to be appointed as interim lead class counsel.
On May 1, 2014, the District Court granted the objecting
plaintiffs motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from
the January 21, 2014 Order and the objectors filed a petition for
permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
On July 9, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the petition for permission to appeal. Briefing is
complete and the oral argument occurred on November 5, 2015. The
parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals.
Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.
FACEBOOK INC: Mines Data Off Cancer Sites, "Smith" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that facebook spied on users that relayed private health
information on the websites of major cancer institutes and
harvested the data to generate advertising profits, users claim in
a new class action in San Jose, Calif.
Lead plaintiff Winston Smith sued Facebook, the American Cancer
Society, the American Society of Oncology and five other cancer
institutes in Federal Court on March 16.
Websites for the medical institutes feature a secret "Facebook
code" that "commandeers" users' web browsers and sends private
information to the social media giant, Smith claims in his 92-page
complaint.
"This lawsuit is without merit, and we will defend ourselves
vigorously," a Facebook spokeswoman said in an email March 16,
afternoon.
Smith says Facebook uses the private health data it obtains to
create marketing profiles for each user, and then targets them
with tailored advertisements based on their private information.
A person's health condition is the second most valuable piece of
personal data sought after on the web behind login credentials and
passwords, according to a 2015 study on web privacy and security
cited in the complaint.
The social media giant earned nearly $11.5 billion in advertising
revenue in 2014, according to the suit.
When Smith searched for information on lung cancer at the American
Cancer Society's website cancer.org, the information he sought and
links he clicked were sent to Facebook without his knowledge or
consent, he says. The lawsuit cites a chart Facebook uses to sell
advertising services, which places more than 225 million users in
154 separate medical categories for direct marketing purposes.
"Facebook's application for advertisers touts its ability to
target users based on information Facebook has collected about
them relating to health care," the complaint states.
Facebook's medical-categories list identifies users associated
with a wide range of medical conditions, including diabetes,
pregnancy, addiction, hepatitis C, HPV, erectile dysfunction,
herpes simplex virus and HIV/AIDS.
"Plaintiffs are not aware of the total revenue Facebook derives
from these lists, but, upon information and belief, avers that
per-user revenue for each medical list significantly exceeds the
average per-user revenue for non-medical lists," Smith claims in
the complaint.
Smith says Facebook does not disclose in its data and privacy
policies that it tracks, collects and intercepts users' sensitive
medical information and communications.
Although he contends the medical institutes are "aware of
Facebook's ubiquitous presence on the Internet," Smith says he
does not know if the cancer institutes knew of or profited from
the social media giant's harvesting of personal health
information.
Facebook's tracking of private health data does not occur on most
medical websites, Smith says.
Websites for the Mayo Clinic and John Hopkins Medicine feature a
small Facebook icon on nearly ever page, but those sites don't
allow Facebook to track users' activities, according to the suit.
Smith says the American Cancer Society and other institutes named
in the lawsuit should have disclosed their relationships with
Facebook or informed users that their private health information
would be shared with the social media titan.
An American Cancer Society spokeswoman declined to comment on the
pending litigation.
The complaint cites 10 causes of action against Facebook and the
seven cancer institutes, claiming they failed to safeguard
plaintiffs' private health information under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act, Wiretap Act and other state
and federal laws.
Smith seeks class certification, damages, restitution and a
permanent injunction to stop the defendants from tracking or
disclosing the private health information of Facebook users.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Koncius --
koncius@kbla.com -- of Kiesel Law in Beverly Hills.
Other defendants named in the class action include the Melanoma
Research Foundation, Adventists Health System, BJC Healthcare,
Cleveland Clinic and University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
Center.
In October 2015, a federal judge dismissed a class action claiming
Facebook broke privacy laws by tracking users' Internet activities
after they logged out of their Facebook accounts.
FANDUEL INC: "Genchanok" Suit Moved from E.D. La. to Boston
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Genchanok v. FanDuel, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05127, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10233-GAO to the proceeding.
FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables
users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is
based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Edinburgh, Scotland.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Dugan II, Esq.
THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 648 0180
Facsimile: (504) 648 0181
E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
- and -
David B. Franco, Esq.
Lanson Leon Bordelon, Esq.
THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 648 0180
Facsimile: (504) 648 0181
E-mail: dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com
lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Seth Andrew Schmeeckle, Esq.
LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD
60l Poydras St., Suite 2775
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 568 1990
E-mail: sschmeeckle@lawla.com
- and -
Daniel Rault Martiny, Esq.
Joseph P. Lopinto III, Esq.
MARTINY & ASSOCIATES
131 Airline Hwy., Suite 201
Metairie, LA 70001
Telephone: (504) 834 7676
E-mail: danny@martinylaw.com
joe@martinylaw.com
FANDUEL INC: "Gomez" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gomez et al. v. FanDuel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-23858, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10239-GAO to the proceeding.
FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables
users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is
based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Edinburgh, Scotland.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christos Lagos, Esq.
LAGOS & PRIOVOLOS PLLC
66 W. Flagler St., Suite 1000
Miami, FL 33130-1809
Telephone: (305) 960 1990
Facsimile: (305) 891 2610
E-mail: info@christoslagos.com
- and -
Ervin Amado Gonzalez, Esq.
Patrick S. Montoya, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
Penthouse
255 Alhambra Circle
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476 7400
Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
E-mail: ervin@colson.com
patrick@colson.com
- and -
John Priovolos, Esq.
JOHN PRIOVOLOS PA
2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1
Miami, FL 33129
E-mail: johnpriovolos@aol.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dennis P. Waggoner, Esq.
HILL, WARD & HENDERSON
Barnett Plaza
101 East Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33601
Telephone: (813) 221 3900
- and -
Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS, BOCKIUS
200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 415 3416
Facsimile: (325) 415 3001
E-mail: bercole@morganlewis.com
- and -
Jordan D. Hershman, Esq.
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP - MA
One Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110-1726
Telephone: (617) 951 8455
Facsimile: (617) 951 8736
E-mail: jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com.com
- and -
Matthew C. McDonough, Esq.
Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 951 8840
E-mail: matthew.mcdonough@morganlewis.com
bercole@morganlewis.com
FIELDWOOD ENERGY: Fails to Pay OT, "Leboueuf" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Myron Leboeuf, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Fieldwood Energy, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00703 (S.D. Tex., March
16, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Fieldwood Energy, LLC, is a Delaware corporation which drills and
produces oil; it operates a number of oil rigs, including oil rigs
in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
Corinna Chandler, Esq.
DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
3900 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 722-5990
Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com
cchandler@dobllp.com
FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Unit Has Settlement with Daisy Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that Pollo Operations,
Inc., has reached a settlement of the class action by Daisy Inc.
On September 29, 2014, Daisy, Inc., an automotive repair shop in
Cape Coral, Florida, filed a putative class action suit against
Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Pollo Operations, Inc.
("Pollo") in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. The suit claims that Pollo allegedly engaged
in unlawful activity in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Sec. 227 et seq. occurring in December 2010 and
January 2011.
As of January 3, 2016, Pollo has reached a settlement with the
plaintiff and has recorded a charge of $1.1 million to cover the
estimated costs related to the settlement, which include estimated
payments to class members, plaintiffs attorneys' fees and related
settlement administration costs, but does not include legal fees
incurred by Pollo in defending the action. The settlement, which
is subject only to final approval by the Court, will result in
dismissal of the case.
Fiesta Restaurant Group owns, operates and franchises two fast-
casual restaurant brands, Pollo Tropical(R) and Taco Cabana(R).
FIFTH STREET: Issued Fraudulent IPO Offering Materials, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald K. Linde, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., Leonard
M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M.
Noreika, Wayne Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison and
Frank C. Meyer, Case No. 1:16-cv-01941-LLS (D. Conn., March 16,
2016), alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements of fact; and failed to disclose facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading,
including, among other statements, that: (i) FSAM had $4.2 billion
AUM from FSC as of June 30, 2014, when in fact a substantial
portion of FSC's portfolio had been impaired on a cost basis prior
to the IPO; (ii) FSAM had increased its management fee revenues by
a compound annual growth rate ("CAGR") of nearly 50% year-over-
year during the six months ended June 30, 2014 due to FSAM's
"outstanding performance," when in fact the growth in fee revenue
was largely due to the overstatement of FSC's assets and dilutive
stock offerings detrimental to the Fund's shareholders; and (iii)
FSAM had "high-quality and predictable earnings," when in fact
FSAM's revenues were unsustainable and the result of conduct that
placed FSAM's most important asset -- its management contract with
FSC -- at risk.
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. is a credit-focused asset
manager and the investment advisor for FSC, FSFR and various Fifth
Street funds.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI LLP
One Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 358-0800
Facsimile: (203) 348-2321
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT: "Accardi" Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Accardi v. Financial Asset
Management Systems, Inc., Case No. 15A3173-7, was removed from
the State Court of Cobb County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00430-WCO-WEJ.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Act.
Financial Asset Management Systems provides customized receivables
management services primarily in the United States. It offers
first and third party collection programs; skip tracing and
collection programs; default prevention programs; pre-subrogation
programs to locate, contact, and provide borrowers last
opportunity to resolve their defaulted loans prior to assignment
to the U.S. Department of Education; letter programs; and custom
programs. It serves education, financial services, government
services, healthcare, and telecommunications/media industries.
Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR AND FEAGLE
374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Telephone: (404) 373 1978
E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
krisskaar@aol.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John H. Bedard Jr., Esq.
Jonathan K. Aust, Esq.
BEDARD LAW GROUP, P.C.
2810 Peachtree Industrial Blvd.
Suite D
Duluth, GA 30097
Telephone: (678) 253 1871
Facsimile: (378) 860 1873
E-mail: jbedard@bedardlawgroup.com
aust@bedardlawgroup.com
FRESH INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lip Balm Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit affirmed
dismissal March 17 of a class action accusing Fresh Inc. of
deceiving consumers about the quantity of lip balm in its Sugar
Lip Treatment.
The class complained that oversized packaging and the lip tube's
screw mechanism keep customers from getting to the bottom 25
percent of the product.
The case captioned, ANGELA EBNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRESH,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee., No. 13-56644
(9th Cir.).
A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision is available at
http://bit.ly/1RgwgqGfrom Leagle.com.
Henry Alexander Iliff (argued) -- iliff.alex@dorsey.com -- Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, New York, New York; James E. Howard -- Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Seattle, Washington; Adam H. Springel --
aspringel@springelfink.com -- Springel & Fink LLP, Costa Mesa,
California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Stephen R. Smerek (argued) -- ssmerek@winston.com -- Drew A.
Robertson -- DARobertson@winston.com -- and Shawn Rieko Obi --
sobi@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, California,
for Defendant-Appellee.
The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Jerome Farris,
A. Wallace Tashima, and Jay S. Bybee.
G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces "Boller" Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Boller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the plaintiff, v. G. Willi-Food International Ltd.,
Gregory Gurtovoy, Gil Hochboim, Itai Loewenstein, Raviv Segal,
Pavel Buber, Iram Greiver, Ilan Admon, and Ayelet Eliav, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01528 (S.D.N.Y., February 29, 2016),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff purchased G. Willi-Food securities at artificially
inflated prices and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures.
On April 30, 2014, the Company filed a Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013 (the "2013 20-F") with the SEC, which
provided the Company's year-end financial results and position and
stated that the Company's internal control over financial
reporting was effective as of December 31, 2013. The 2013 20-F was
signed by Defendant Hochboim. The 2013 20-F also contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 by Defendants Hochboim and Segal attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, effectiveness of internal
controls, and that all fraud was disclosed.
G. Willi-Food develops, imports, exports, markets, and distributes
over 600 food products worldwide. The Company markets and sells
its food products to over 1,500 customers in Israel and around the
world including large retail and private supermarket chains,
wholesalers and institutional consumers. The Company is
incorporated in Israel and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686 2603
GENERAL MILLS INC: "Hamilton" Suit Filed in Dist. of Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Mills, Inc.
The case is captioned Christopher Hamilton, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. General
Mills, Inc. and General Mills Sales, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
6:16-cv-00382-MC (D. Ore., March 1, 2016).
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bonner Charles Walsh, Esq.
Walsh, LLC
P O Box 7
Bly, OR 97622
Telephone: (541) 359 2827
Facsimile: (866) 503 8206
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
GILLETTE: Class Members' Bid to Challenge Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Bader, writing for Examiner.com, reports that class-action
lawsuits are commonly settled for things that benefit the lawyers
bringing them, rather than the class of allegedly victimized
people on whose behalf they are supposedly suing.
A classic example is Frank v. Poertner, now pending before the
Supreme Court. Ripped-off class members asking the Supreme Court
to hear their challenge to a class action settlement that awarded
class lawyers $5.7 million, while 99 percent of class members get
nothing, and a third-party nonprofit got a bunch of donated
batteries. As Roger Parloff of Fortune asks, "Should Plaintiffs
Lawyers Get 94% of A Class Action Settlement?" The Supreme Court
should answer with a loud "No."
The class-action lawsuit was brought against Gillette, the maker
of Duracell batteries, over dubious advertising about a type of
Duracell batteries that have since been discontinued. Ted Frank,
who heads CEI's Center for Class Action Fairness, is the named
objector to this settlement, which was rubberstamped by the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision that conflicts
with other federal appeals court rulings such as Pearson v. NBTY,
Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014).
The settlement by the lawyers extinguished the claims of 7.26
million plaintiffs nationwide in exchange for essentially
worthless "relief" for that massive class. The parties' counsel
structured the settlement to provide plaintiffs' counsel more than
$5.6 million -- a multiple of the "lodestar" value of their hourly
bills -- while all their clients together realized less than
$345,000 and 99 percent of them got nothing at all. The
settlement also stipulated that Duracell would give $6 million
worth of batteries (retail value) to third-party charities of its
own choosing over five years, and provided a meaningless
injunction governing only a line of batteries Duracell had already
discontinued. (The donation to charity in a class action lawsuit
is known as "cy pres.")
In short, the lawyers reaped over 16 times more than their
millions of clients combined. Even pretending that the cy pres
award is a benefit to the class (which it is not) would still
leave the lawyers with almost half the settlement's overall value.
To justify their exorbitant fees, the lawyers who structured the
settlement had pretended that its value was $50 million for class
members, but less than one percent of that was ever paid out to
them. The cy pres award allowed Gillette to donate product at
retail value to a charity it already supported.
Cy pres awards are supposed to go to groups with some relationship
to the interests of members of the class, but all too often, the
relationship is minimal or absent. In 2007, for example, The
Washington Post published a story about how federal judge Harold
Baer gave money from a class-action lawsuit by models alleging
they were ripped off by agencies to programs for women with eating
disorders. As the Post noted, federal judges have repeatedly used
such settlements for purposes unrelated to the underlying lawsuit,
giving the money to "religious organizations," "law schools," and
other organizations that "hire lobbyists" to influence judges.
In state court, things can be even worse. As I noted in 2007,
California state judges have used "class-action settlements for
ideological purposes. Settlements intended to benefit consumers
get paid instead to groups that lobby for affirmative action,
hate-crimes laws, undocumented immigrants and public funding for
abortion, even though many consumers have no interest in such
political causes."
Leftover money from consumer class action settlements have been
given to groups that had little or nothing to do with consumers,
like the left-wing La Raza Legal Center; the Employment Law Center
of the San Francisco Legal Aid Society, which seeks to curb
employers' First Amendment rights; the Lawyers' Committee; and
groups that specialize in advocating affirmative action, broader
definitions of "hate crimes" (at the expense of civil liberties),
or expanded access to welfare programs for illegal immigrants.
The decision by the court below in Frank v. Poertner conflicts
with the rulings of other circuits, meaning that it would make
sense for the Supreme Court to hear the case, by granting the
petition for certiorari that the objectors filed on December 11
(Docket No. 15-765). Truth in Advertising has filed an amicus
brief in support of that petition. The objectors have also filed a
reply brief in the Supreme Court that you can find here.
In 2014, the Center for Class Action Fairness won a case, Pearson
v. NBTY, Inc., where the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck
down a similarly exploitative settlement (in a lawsuit over
glucosamine pills). The Pearson settlement paid $2.1 million to
the attorneys, less than $0.9 million to the class, $1.1 million
in a cy pres donation, and included an injunction involving
meaningless advertising changes. The Seventh Circuit held that
the settlement was a "selfish deal between class counsel and
defendant" and that courts must look at what the class actually
receives rather than class counsel's exaggerated, illusory
calculation. Although the Poertner settlement was in many ways
worse than Pearson, the Eleventh Circuit refused to apply the same
standards as Pearson.
The Eleventh Circuit's ruling squarely conflicts with how other
federal appeals courts evaluate the attorney share of class-action
awards, especially the Sixth and Seventh Circuits. (See, e.g.,
Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014); In re Dry Max
Pampers Litigation, 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013).)
Its decision also squarely conflicts with how other federal
appeals courts evaluate the propriety of cy pres relief, such as
the Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits. (See, e.g.,
Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014); Klier v. Elf
Atochem, 658 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2011); In re BankAmerica Corp.
Sec. Litigation, 775 F.3d 1060, 1063-67 (8th Cir. 2015); Holtzman
v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682, 689-90 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Dry Max
Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013)).
GOLDEN SANDS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------
Hector Perez, on behalf of himself and other employees similarly
situated v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., Case No. 1:16-
cv-20962-JLK (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2016), is brought against the
defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., is a Florida corporation
primarily engaged in providing construction services throughout
South Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin E. Leach, Esq.
FEILER & LEACH, P.L.
The American Airlines Building
901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Suite no. 300
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 441-8818
Facsimile: (305) 441-8081
E-mail: mel@flmlegal.com
erodriguez@flmlegal.com
GOLDEN TOKEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Castro" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Mayra Castro and America Cruz, v. Golden Token, LLC, a limited
liability company, Manifold Pacific Int'l Investment, LLC, a
limited liability, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 30-2016-00841235 (Cal.
Super., March 16, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay proper wage in violation of the California Labor
Code.
Golden Token, LLC, is a California corporation which owns and
operates a hotel under the trade name "Ramada Inn."
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James B. Hardin, Esq.
Ward J. Lott, Esq.
HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, APC
4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 337-4810
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: jhardin@hardinemploymentlaw.com
wlott@hardinemploymentlaw.com
GREENE'S ENERGY GROUP: "Lee" Suit Seeks Compensation Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD EMMET LEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00067 (S.D. Tex., Corpus Christi
Div., February 29, 2016), seeks to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).
Greene's Energy Group provides integrated testing, rentals, and
specialty services to the onshore and offshore oil and gas
industry. The company offers blowout preventer (BOP) pressure
testing, stack lifting, hydraulic torqueing, hydraulic rig-up
trucks and gin truck, rig-up/-down, casing cutting, pumping, and
engineering services, as well as spools and DSAs, wear bushings,
retrieving tools, associated rentals, and lubricants; chemical
products and services, including oil and gas completion/production
chemicals, water treatment technology/chemicals, portable
separation equipment, pipeline management and water treatment
services, and iron sulfide/black powder mitigation treatment
programs. The Company is based in Houston, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452 1279
Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com
aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com
lbraddy@phippsandersondeacon.com
GRUPPO CHIARELLO: Sued Over Sexual Harassment, Labor Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Fort, writing for San Francisco Eater, reports that on March
15, two lawsuits were filed against celebrity chef Michael
Chiarello and his restaurant group Gruppo Chiarello, which
includes Coqueta in San Francisco and Bottega Ristorante in
Yountville. The lawsuit, alleging sexual harassment and labor
violations, was filed by Katherine Page and Asja Sever, two former
employees of Coqueta, and outlines a series of alleged abuses
during their employment.
In the lawsuit, Page and Sever detail several alleged instances in
which Chiarello, Coqueta's executive chef Dominick Maietta and
other management level employees of Coqueta created an alleged
"sexually charged, hostile and abusive environment."
Executive chef Maietta's conduct has also been called into
question, and he is listed as a defendant alongside
Mr. Chiarello.
According to the complaints, the alleged harassment extended to
servers of all orientations and genders.
Additionally, a class-action suit was filed alleging that the
restaurant failed to pay wages and overtime, manipulated clocks
and timesheets and forced front of the house employees to pool
their tips with the kitchen staff.
* * *
Dave Tartre, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the lawsuit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court.
Page and Sever are represented by Kelly Armstrong in Sausalito,
California.
Gruppo Chiarello's representatives did not respond to phone and
email requests for comment.
HERMES: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in Manhattan
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that commissioned sales staff at
a Hermes boutique filed a class action in Manhattan accusing the
luxury retailer of wage and hour abuses.
HOME DEPOT: Data Breach Class Action Settlement Relatively Low
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
$19.5 million settlement Home Depot Inc. was able to reach in
connection with its massive 2014 data breach was relatively low,
which can be attributed to the difficulty plaintiffs in many
related cases have had in successfully claiming damages, say
experts.
Atlanta-based Home Depot announced that it will set up a $13
million fund to reimburse shoppers for out-of-pocket losses and
spend at least $6.5 million to fund one-and-a-half years of
cardholder identity protection services, according to court papers
filed March 7 with the U.S. District Court in Atlanta,.
Under terms of the settlement, if the number of settlement class
members who enroll in monitoring service is more than 40 million
persons, the cost of these services will increase at a rate of
$16,250 for every 100,000 eligible settlement class members over
that total, according to the settlement terms.
Class members who submit a valid claim form and "reasonable"
documentation of substantiated losses are eligible for
reimbursement of up to a maximum of $10,000. Class members have
until July 18, 2016 to opt out of the settlement. A final hearing
on the settlement is scheduled for Aug. 12.
The settlement covers about 40 million people who had payment card
data stolen and 52 million to 53 million who had email addresses
stolen, with some overlap between the two groups.
Experts say the settlement was not larger because in many
comparable cases, defenders have successfully sought dismissal on
the basis that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because
they had not yet suffered injury.
One exception to this was the July 2015 ruling by the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which held that plaintiffs in
a Neiman Marcus breach case met the standard set in the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International
USA in showing a "substantial risk of harm" from the 2013 data
breach. That case is now proceeding in U.S. District Court in
Chicago, with a status hearing set for May 12.
Roberta Anderson, a partner with K&L Gates L.L.P. in Pittsburgh,
who is not involved in the case, referred to the 2015 $10 million
settlement by Minneapolis-based Target Corp. over its 2013 data
breach, which compromised at least 40 million cards.
Ms. Anderson said she could not comment on the specifics of the
Home Depot settlement. But "the relatively low settlement amount
that we see in Target and Home Depot is reflective of the fact
that the plaintiffs in these cases face very significant uphill
challenges in getting their claims to advance through the judicial
system because the vast majority of those plaintiffs lack actual
compensatory injuries," so their claims "are subject to
significant challenges, including on standing grounds."
Ms. Anderson said had the two cases not been settled there was a
good chance they would have been dismissed at the pleading stage,
although it would have been expensive for the companies to proceed
with the litigation.
Linn Foster Freedman, a partner with Robinson & Cole L.L.P. in
Providence, Rhode Island, said, "Home Depot has alleged all along
that none of these customers were harmed by the intrusion," but
the company has "been sued in multiple class actions that have
been consolidated, and (Home Depot is) settling it because it's
extremely expensive to litigate class action lawsuits."
Ms. Freedman said, "What is the most interesting thing about this
settlement to me is that (it) includes a recovery of up to $10,000
per customer, which includes up to five hours of documented time
that consumers have to deal with issues around identity theft,
making sure that they're protecting themselves, and to my
knowledge that's the first time we've seen that."
"This case has been a model, really, from day one," said
Ms. Freedman, who is not involved in the case. Home Depot "did a
great job with crisis management following the data breach, and I
do believe every settlement we see" in the future will flow from
this one.
HONEST COMPANY: Soap Products Contain Skin Irritant, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honest Company promises natural laundry and dish soaps free of
harmful chemicals but the products contain high levels of the skin
irritant sodium lauryl sulfate, according to a federal class
action in Los Angeles.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert. Hearing in "Field" Case Adjourned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the class certification
hearing in the case by Nick Field has been adjourned, and there is
currently no date set for that hearing.
In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington
facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated
the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other
Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were
allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with
Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification
hearing scheduled for October 2015 was adjourned, and there is
currently no date set for that hearing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries are engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dismissal of Contact Lens Claims Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the Company and other
defendants have filed motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit
over contact lenses.
In March 2015, Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) filed a
complaint against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) in
the United States District Court of the Northern District of
California, alleging antitrust claims of an unlawful vertical
price fixing agreement between JJVCI, Costco and unnamed other
distributors and retailers. Costco alleges that the alleged
agreements harmed competition by causing increases in the price
Costco customers pay for JJVCI contact lenses. Costco is seeking
an injunction and monetary damages.
In June 2015, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida along with
related class action cases. In November 2015, the Court denied a
JJVCI motion to dismiss.
In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix
the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints alleged that
the manufacturers reached agreements between each other and
certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which
some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are
seeking damages. All of the class action cases were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida in June 2015 along with the related case filed by Costco
Wholesale Corporation. The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action complaint in November 2015, and in December 2015, JJVCI and
other defendants filed motions to dismiss.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries are engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Defending Xarelto(R) Payors Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend class action lawsuit by two third-party payors of
Xarelto(R).
In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC,
Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain
Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed
and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less
expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose
its risks. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries are engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field.
JP MORGAN: "Beyea" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Sharleen Beyea, on her own behalf and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., the Defendant,
Case No. 8:16-cv-00483-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla. (Tampa Div.), February
29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, retaliation, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
JP Morgan Chase Bank provides global financial services and retail
banking. The Company offers investment banking, treasury and
securities services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William John Gadd, Esq.
W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
Clearwater, FL 33762
Telephone: (727) 524 6300
Facsimile: (727) 524 6330
E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Ambers" Suit Over False Advertisement
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ambers, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Kraft Heinz Corporation., a
Delaware Corporation, Kraft Food Groups, Inc., a Virginia
Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC612088 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, February 29,
2016), seeks to recover damages, restitution and relief due to
Defendants' Fraudulent and Deceptive Business Practices and False
Advertising (Business and Professions Code).
The Plaintiff alleges that Kraft produces and distributes millions
of containers of Parmesan cheese and other cheese products
throughout the State of California each year, many of which brands
boldly label "100% Parmesan Cheese" and "No
Fillers." According to the recent independent laboratory study,
KRAFT's Parmesan cheese contains up to three point eight percent
(3.8%) fillers including wood pulp and/or other cellulose products
in addition to other non-Parmesan cheese products.
Kraft Heinz Foods produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names;
and tomato and vegetable-based snacks, prepared meals, frozen
potatoes, frozen snacks and entrees, and other products under the
brand names of Heinz, Quero, ABC, Ore-Ida, Bagel Bites, T.G.I.
Friday's, Smart Ones, and Weight Watchers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin C. Schreiber, Esq.
Eric A. Schreiber, Esq.
Ean M. Schreiber, Esq.
SCHREIBER & SCHREIBER, INC.
166633 Ventura Boulevard Suite 711
Encino, CA 91436-2068
Telephone: (818)789 2577
Facsimile: (818)789 3391
KRAFT HEINZ: "Evans" Suit Asserts Product Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00257-NAB (E.D. Mo., February 25, 2016), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, statutory interest and
penalties, injunctive and/or declaratory relief, prejudgment
interest and attorney' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Kraft manufactures cheese products. Plaintiff accuses Defendant of
unsubstantiated claims of unadulterated cheese components despite
the presence of fillers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
Philip Sholtz, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63102
Tel: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
phil@thedriscollfirm.com
JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Class Action Over Promotional Spam Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that one
of America's biggest income tax return preparation companies, one
of the country's largest credit card companies and an online
provider of discounted dining vouchers have been hit with a
potential class action lawsuit accusing them of sending spam text
messages as part of a coordinated promotional campaign.
On March 11, Jackson Hewitt, American Express and Restaurant.com
were each named as defendants in a federal complaint filed by
plaintiff Phil Hollingsworth, of far northwest suburban Marengo,
on his own behalf and on behalf of potentially tens of thousands
of others who could be included as potential members of a
plaintiff class.
Mr. Hollingsworth is represented in the action by attorney Sergei
Lemberg, of Lemberg Law, of Wilton, Conn.
According to the complaint, Hollingsworth, like many across the
country, provided his cell phone number to Jackson Hewitt. The
complaint did not specify when, how or why Mr. Hollingsworth gave
his mobile number to the provider of income tax return preparation
services.
However, the complaint said, on Feb. 10, Mr. Hollingsworth began
receiving text messages on his mobile phone from Jackson Hewitt,
promoting itself as well as extending special offers from
Restaurant.com and American Express for clients of Jackson Hewitt.
Specifically, sample text messages cited in Mr. Hollingsworth's
complaint said those who use Jackson Hewitt to prepare and file
their federal income tax returns can receive any federal income
tax refunds "up to 2 days faster" if they open an American Express
Serve Card. Further, if tax refunds are paid onto the American
Express Serve Card, the text messages said such customers can also
receive a voucher for $25 off a restaurant meal through
Restaurant.com.
The text messages continued to come to Hollingsworth's mobile
phone until at least Feb. 23, the complaint said, even though
Hollingsworth twice replied to the text messages with the word
"Stop," following the instructions provided at the end of the
promotional text messages.
According to the complaint, Jackson Hewitt was not clear enough in
explaining to Hollingsworth and others believed to have received
similar text messages about "the consequence of providing Jackson
Hewitt their phone number," and did not specify that the customer
was agreeing "unambiguously to receive automated text messages
from or on behalf of" Jackson Hewitt, American Express or
Restaurant.com. This, they said, was a violation of federal
telecommunications law.
Further, the complaint alleged Jackson Hewitt violated the law by
continuing to send text messages even after receiving a reply from
the recipient asking them to stop.
And the complaint said the text messages also violated
prohibitions in federal law against sending non-emergency
automated text messages to mobile phones without expressed written
consent of the recipients.
Mr. Hollingsworth's complaint asked the court to certify two
potential classes of plaintiffs: Those who, in the last four
years, received promotional text messages from Jackson Hewitt
without first providing "clear and conspicuous prior express
written consent" to receive the messages; and, those who, within
the last four years, continued to receive the text messages even
after they replied "Stop."
The complaint asked the court to issue injunctions barring Jackson
Hewitt from continuing to send the text messages, and statutory
damages of $500-$1,500 per text message sent in violation of
federal law, plus attorney fees.
JANSSEN RESEARCH: "McWaters" Sues Over XARELTO (R) Effects
----------------------------------------------------------
Jerry McWaters, Plaintiff, v. Janssen Research and Development,
Llc, f/k/a Johnson And Johnson Pharmaceutical Research And
Development LLC, Janssen Ortho, LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc,
f/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc, f/k/a Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Bayer
Pharma AG, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer
Healthcare AG and Bayer AG, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01577
(E.D. La., February 24, 2016), seeks medical and incidental
expenses, loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, general
damages, compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary damages,
economic and noneconomic and exemplary damages, reasonable
attorney fees and other appropriate relief, prejudgment and post
judgment interest resulting from products defects, negligence,
breach of warranty, fraudulent, misrepresentation and suppression
and for violation of consumer protection laws.
Plaintiff was being treated for atrial fibrillation and was
discharged home on Xarelto, 20mg after the procedure and
experienced shaking and stuttering, bright red blood at the rectum
and blood-tinged urine.
Defendants produce Xarelto (R), also known as rivaroxaban, to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation and to treat deep vein
thrombosis.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. Hood, Esq.
789 Sherman St., Suite 420
Denver, CO 80203
Tel: (844) 446-4663
Fax: (303) 362-6770
Email: rich@attorneysfor.us
- and -
Randy V. Pelham, Esq.
2520-2 Barrington Circle
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Tel: (850) 383-6600
Email: rpelham@pelhamlaw.com
JULIAN BUILDERS: Fails to Pay OT, "Ramsey" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
Seth Ramsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Julian Builders, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01054-JDB-egb
(W.D. Tenn., March 16, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Julian Builders, Inc., is a Tenesse corporation and engaged as a
construction company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 321
P.O Box 266
Jackson, TN 38302
Telephone: (731) 423-5565
E-mail: mike@weinmanandassoc.com
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Gun Sights Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Koenig and Patrick Boyle, writing for Law360, report that L-
3 Communications Corp. again asked an Oregon federal judge on
March 14 to toss a putative class action alleging its EOTech
subsidiary sold defective holographic weapons sights to individual
consumers outside its U.S. military contracts, arguing the
customer still hasn't shown his sights were actually faulty.
Oregon resident Jerry Chen's first amended complaint -- filed Feb.
25, just over two weeks after L-3 first sought dismissal, instead
of directly responding to that dismissal bid -- doesn't cure any
of the "numerous" failings of the original complaint,
L-3 said, including that he never alleged a defect in his sights,
never made a warranty claim as required by state law and never
showed that he relied on any specific statements by the company in
purchasing the products.
"Instead, the amended complaint merely adds irrelevant factual
allegations, such as quotations (without citations) on the
importance of accuracy and shooting, attributed to alleged former
military and law enforcement personnel, and even Wyatt Earp," the
company said in seeking dismissal for itself and subsidiary L-3
Communications EOTech Inc.
The failure to resolve those deficiencies should be fatal to the
complaint, L-3 said in pushing for dismissal.
As it did last month, L-3 argued Mr. Chen is doing little more
than repeating the allegations in a False Claims Act suit brought
last year by the U.S. Department of Justice, which claimed the
company sold faulty sights under contract to the Department of
Defense that drifted away from where the firearm was pointed when
they got too hot. L-3 settled the suit for $25.6 million in
November.
Mr. Chen still hasn't alleged that his own sights were defective,
however, L-3 said, and he hasn't identified the specific products
he bought or where he got them.
"Nor does he allege that he sought any remedy from EOTech per the
terms of the written warranty or that he provided any pre-suit
notice of any kind," said L-3, which purchased EOTech in 2005.
"Nor does he claim that EOTech has ever failed to honor its
warranty to any purchaser of EOTech sights."
L-3 argued that the law bars breach of warranty claims when the
customer never notified the seller that the product is faulty
before pursuing litigation.
Mr. Chen also has not shown that he relied on specific
representations by L-3 in buying the sights, which L-3 said he
would need to do in pursuing allegations of fraud in hiding the
purported defects.
"In amending, plaintiff now states that representations on the
product's performance appeared in EOTech's 'advertisements,
packaging, package inserts, and website, [and] were also delivered
to retailers in the form of marketing materials and specifications
which were reprinted verbatim to consumers,'" L-3 said. "But
nowhere does he allege that he actually read or encountered these
'representations' or that they formed the basis for his
purchases."
Nor has Mr. Chen shown any duty to disclose issues with the
sights, L-3 said.
Mr. Chen's lawsuit alleges EOTech relied on its military and law
enforcement contracts to pitch its sights to civilian customers,
and boasted that they could operate in temperatures from minus 40
to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. He seeks to represent anyone who
purchased an EOTech holographic sight -- which superimposes a
target reticle on an optical window -- from 2006 to the present.
He said he bought one in 2010 and another in 2012.
L-3 also argues that any claims for sights bought before Dec. 10,
2009, are barred by the statute of limitations.
Mr. Chen is represented by Bonner C. Walsh of Walsh LLC and Adam
R. Gonnelli of Faruqi and Faruqi LLP.
L-3 is represented by Lois O. Rosenbaum --
lois.rosenbaum@stoel.com -- and Reed W. Morgan --
reed.morgan@stoel.com -- of Stoel Rives LLP, and by Richard C.
Godfrey, J. Andrew Langan, Kristopher S. Ritter --
kristopher.ritter@kirkland.com -- and Tim Pickert
-- tim.pickert@kirkland.com of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The case is Chen v. L-3 Communications EOTech Inc., case number
1:15-cv-02308 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon.
LAS VEGAS LIMOUSINES: "Botezatu" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Botezatu on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Las Vegas Limousines, LLC and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. 2:16-cv-00397 (D. Nev., February
25, 2016), seeks damages for overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, 30 days wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs of suit incurred, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Las Vegas Limousine, LLC is a Nevada corporation with a principal
place of business at 5010 S Valley View Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89118.
It provides limousine services where Plaintiff worked as a
chauffeur/limousine driver. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of
not paying the mandated minimum wage and overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Tel. (775) 284-1500
Fax. (775) 703-5027
Email: mark@thiermanlaw.com
josh@thiermanlaw.com
leah@thiermanlaw.com
LINC ENERGY: Class Action Mulled Over Coal Gasification Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Arlie Felton-Taylor, writing for ABC, reports that the court case
between Linc Energy and the Queensland Government is just one of
the issues relating to the resources industry for the Hopelands
community and for some it is causing division.
The company was committed to stand trial on five charges alleging
it breached Queensland's environmental laws at its underground
coal gasification site.
One local cattle producer, who lives less than two kilometers from
the Linc Energy site, has said he agreed with the company and
could not believe it was going to court.
Toby Trebilco said they had never seen any evidence of
contamination on his property and added that extensive tests had
been undertaken.
According to Mr. Trebilco, all measures to find evidence of the
contamination were undertaken and the it was found to be
"absolutely clear".
Mr. Trebilco said it has had an impact on his cattle business in
that he has had to reassure buyers that his stock was safe for
human consumption because of the continued media hype.
"Each time my cattle are processed through two abattoirs we are in
constant contact with them to say that, regardless of what they're
hearing in the media, our cattle are absolutely perfect," he said.
Meanwhile another local, Shay Dougall, said she would be watching
the case with interest given she lives about 10 kilometers away
from Linc Energy's operations.
Ms. Dougall acknowledged there were mixed views on this case but
said she personally welcomed the news the company would face
trial.
"This is a very confusing time. There is no evidence that is
visible right now that there is any evidence to cropping or animal
that damage may still be underground," she said.
"People are still taking a very considered approach to this. They
don't want to overreact, the thing is we still need to be aware of
what may come in the future."
Ms. Dougall said there may be further legal action in the form of
a class action, but it was still under consideration.
"There are mixed reactions and mixed considerations. The issue is
really that as a community the Government has not engaged the
community as a whole with the perspective of 'how does this impact
you, your families, your farms and your future',"
Ms. Dougall said.
"The Government is purely pursuing this from an environmental act
perspective."
However others in the community, such as local farmer
Arthur Gearon, have expressed relief that glad the process was
underway so there would finally be some closure.
LINTECH ELECTRIC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Lythcott" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Al Lythcott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lintech Electric, Inc. and Linden J.
Tudor, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00700 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime premium pay, unpaid prevailing wages, and daily overtime
and supplemental benefits, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and York Labor Law (NYLL).
Lintech Electric is engaged electrical contracting business
performing electrical work on public and private projects
throughout New York City.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385 9700
E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
graham@peltonlaw.com
LIXI HOSPITALITY: Violated Labor Law, "Febres" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Febres, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lixi Hospitality White Plains LLC
d/b/a Sheraton Tarrytown, Xiao Shen, and any other related
entities, the Defendants, Case No. 150998/2016 (NY Sup. Ct.,
County of New York, February 5, 2016), seeks to recover unlawfully
retained gratuities under the Labor Law and Hospitality Wage
Order.
The Defendants own and operate hotel and catering services in New
York, including but not limited to Sheraton Tarrytown.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873 9550
LKQ CORPORATION: "Magana-Mead" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Magana-Mead and Andres Venegas, individually and on behalf
of all similarly-situated current and former employees
of Defendants in California, the Plaintiffs, v. LKQ Corporation, a
Delaware Corporation, Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., a
California Corporation, LKQ Lakenor Auto & Truck Salvage, Inc. dba
LKQ of Southern California, a California Corporation, and
DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02670 (Cal.
Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, February 29, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, benefits, expenses, interest, attorney's
fees, damages, penalties, and costs pursuant to the
Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, California Industrial
Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order.
LKQ Corporation is an American auto parts company. The company is
focused on providing wholesale used and refurbished auto parts via
its subsidiaries across the United States and the world. As of
2014, it was a Fortune 500 corporation. The company also operates
facilities selling recycled automotive products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
Geoff Laval, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692 0800
Facsimile: (619) 692 0822
LONE TREE CITY: "Clements" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
David Clements and John and Jane Doe, 1-800, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City Of
Lone Tree, a Colorado Municipal Corporation and Jeff Streeter, in
his official capacity as The Chief of Police for Lone Tree Police
Department, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00472 (D. Colo., February
25, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and/or
punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief for breach of contract and pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
David Clements was a Lone Tree Police Officer and Streeter was his
captain. He claims to have not been paid for his pre and post
shift work rendered.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reid J. Elkus, Esq.
Scott D. McLeod, Esq.
501 S. CheProrry Street, Suite #920
Denver, CO 80246
Tel: (303) 567-7981
Fax: (303) 431-3753
Email: relkus@elkusandsisson.com
smcleod@elkusandsisson.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Lawyer Docs Still Privileged, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
privileged documents released by accident are still privileged and
are not granted any exemption under public records laws, the
California Supreme Court ruled March 17, in Los Angeles.
The unanimous ruling stems from two tax documents released by a
Los Angeles city official -- inadvertently, according to city
attorneys -- to a man suing the city over a tax dispute that was
settled last year.
In 2007, Estuardo Ardon filed a class-action lawsuit against Los
Angeles challenging one of the city's telephone taxes and seeking
a tax refund. Ardon claimed the 10 percent tax was illegal
because it had been levied on services not subject to federal tax.
A number of taxpayer and consumer advocacy groups filed amicus
briefs in the lawsuit, and several attorney groups and bar
associations filed on behalf of Los Angeles. During discovery,
Ardon requested numerous tax documents and business records of the
League of California Cities.
Los Angeles provided some of the requested documents, but withheld
27 of them, claiming the documents were privileged under the
attorney-work product doctrine.
The California Supreme Court found in 2008 that the disputed
documents were, in fact, privileged.
Los Angeles would settle the case in 2015 and refund $92 million
of the taxes to citizens, a fraction of the hundreds of millions
it could have been made to pay if Ardon had won out in court.
However, the case was revived just before settlement on the issue
of the privileged documents.
In 2013, Ardon again requested related documents via his attorney.
A city official granted the request and inadvertently released two
of the 27 privileged documents: a 2006 memo from the League's
legal department and a memo from the Los Angeles administrative
officer to the city's attorney.
When the city found out, it contacted Ardon's attorney, Rachele
Rickert, requesting he return the documents. Rickert refused,
arguing that the city waived its privileges by disclosing the
documents, even if it was by mistake, and that the state's public
records laws had no explicit exemption for inadvertent disclosure.
The city appealed, and the case again went to state's Supreme
Court.
In March 17 opinion, the court ruled that attorney-work product
privilege is in the public interest and should be protected, even
in cases of inadvertent disclosure, citing a 1999 state appeals
court decision in which a plaintiff's attorney mistakenly provided
privileged documents to the defense attorney.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that no matter if an attorney or the
attorney's client mistakenly released privileged documents, the
documents themselves remain privileged.
"In light of the fact that human error is as likely to occur in
the process of responding to a Public Records Act request as to a
discovery request, there appears to be no reason why inadvertent
disclosures should be treated differently," Justice Ming Chin
wrote.
Chin did not castigate Rickert for requesting the documents, but
for refusing to release them.
"The question is not whether counsel should have used the Public
Records Act in this way," the judge wrote. "The question is what
she should have done after receiving what appeared to be
privileged documents."
Rickert, who is with Wolf Haldenstein, did not immediately respond
to emailed request for comment.
The case captioned, ESTUARDO ARDON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant, S223876 (Cal.)
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Appeal in "Hart" Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not yet issued
a decision on the appeal in the case, Hart, et al. v. Louisiana-
Pacific Corp., Case No. 2:08-CV-00047 (E.D.N.C.).
On August 30, 2013, the District Court in the Hart case
decertified the class and granted summary judgment on the claims
brought by the individual plaintiff's dismissing the entire case.
The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal and decertification to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Oral
argument was held on September 16, 2015. No decision has been
rendered.
"The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to certify classes
consisting of all persons that own structures within the
respective states in which the lawsuits were filed (or, in some
cases, within the United States) on which the hardboard trim in
question is installed," the Company said. "The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and injunctive and other relief under various
state law theories, including negligence, violations of consumer
protection laws, and breaches of implied and express warranties,
fraud, and unjust enrichment. While some individual owners of
structures within the putative classes may have valid warranty
claims, we believe that the claims asserted on a class basis are
without merit and we intend to defend these matters vigorously. We
have established warranty reserves for the hardboard trim in
question pursuant to our normal business practices, and we do not
believe that the resolution of these lawsuits will have a material
effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash
flows or liquidity."
The Company is a manufacturer of building products.
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Motion in Bristol Village Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to await a ruling on its motion for summary judgment in
the case, Bristol Village Inc. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-00263 (W.D.N.Y.) (filed March 30, 2012,
as a state-wide putative class or, alternatively, as a nation-wide
putative class).
On March 12, 2015, the Court held oral argument on LP's pending
motion for summary judgment, in the Bristol Village case but it
has yet to issue its decision.
"The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to certify classes
consisting of all persons that own structures within the
respective states in which the lawsuits were filed (or, in some
cases, within the United States) on which the hardboard trim in
question is installed," the Company said. "The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and injunctive and other relief under various
state law theories, including negligence, violations of consumer
protection laws, and breaches of implied and express warranties,
fraud, and unjust enrichment. While some individual owners of
structures within the putative classes may have valid warranty
claims, we believe that the claims asserted on a class basis are
without merit and we intend to defend these matters vigorously. We
have established warranty reserves for the hardboard trim in
question pursuant to our normal business practices, and we do not
believe that the resolution of these lawsuits will have a material
effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash
flows or liquidity."
The Company is a manufacturer of building products.
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Appeal in "Brown" Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has not yet issued
a decision on the appeal in the "Brown" class action lawsuit.
"On September 18, 2014, the district court in Brown v. Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation., Case No. 4:12-CV-00102-RP-TJS (S.D. Iowa)
(filed March 8, 2012, as a state-wide putative class) granted LP's
motion for summary judgment and denied as moot Plaintiff's motion
for class certification. Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration
of the court's order which was denied. The plaintiffs appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Oral
arguments were held October 20, 2015. No decision has been
rendered.
"The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to certify classes
consisting of all persons that own structures within the
respective states in which the lawsuits were filed (or, in some
cases, within the United States) on which the hardboard trim in
question is installed," the Company said. "The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and injunctive and other relief under various
state law theories, including negligence, violations of consumer
protection laws, and breaches of implied and express warranties,
fraud, and unjust enrichment. While some individual owners of
structures within the putative classes may have valid warranty
claims, we believe that the claims asserted on a class basis are
without merit and we intend to defend these matters vigorously. We
have established warranty reserves for the hardboard trim in
question pursuant to our normal business practices, and we do not
believe that the resolution of these lawsuits will have a material
effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash
flows or liquidity."
The Company is a manufacturer of building products.
LUXURY MOTORS: Violated NJCFA, "Jordone" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Eder Jordone, individually and or behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Luxury Motors Inc., Formula
Investments Inc., Preferred Warranties Inc., Raritan Bay Federal
Credit Union, Magdelena Delega, Bobby and Jean Doe, and John Does
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-916-16 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
Middlesex Vicinage, February 9, 2016), seeks to recover damages as
a result of Defendants' violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act (NJCFA).
Luxury Motors was founded in 1993. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles. The Company
is based in Downers Grove, Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
CARTON AND RUDNICK
788 Shrewsbury Avenue, building 2, suite 204
Tinton falls, NJ 07724
Telephone: (732) 842 2070
Facsimile: (732) 879 0213
E-mail: jonr@cartonandrudnick.com
LYFT: Drivers to File Legal Objections to Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Teamsters Union and Lyft drivers, on March 15, 2016, disclosed
that it will file legal objections to a class-action lawsuit
settlement which would continue to misclassify Lyft employees in
California as independent contractors.
The objectors, who also plan to intervene in the lawsuit, will
file their objections on March 15 in federal district court in San
Francisco before Judge Vince Chhabria.
The proposed settlement results from a class-action lawsuit
brought in 2013 by two Lyft drivers who sought to be recognized as
employees rather than independent contractors.
"This settlement will leave Lyft's business model intact, allowing
Lyft to continue to treat its current and future drivers as
independent contractors, and avoid properly paying them under
California law. It's unacceptable that Lyft refuses to recognize
its employees, and in doing so, robs millions of workers and
taxpayers in this state," said Rome Aloise, Teamsters
International Vice President and President of Teamsters Joint
Council 7.
The Teamsters have also filed an unfair labor practice charge with
Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in San
Francisco, alleging Lyft's business practice of misclassifying
drivers and its one-sided "terms of use" imposed on its drivers
deprives them of rights guaranteed under federal labor law,
including the right to join a union.
Under the proposed settlement, the average payment to drivers will
be less than sixty dollars. Drivers who have labored for Lyft as
full-time employees for several years could receive up to $1,000,
still a small fraction of what they are owed as employees.
The settlement maintains Lyft's business practice of
misclassifying their employees as independent contractors, which
will cost workers and California taxpayers in the future. The
settlement also provides for a notice to be sent to Lyft drivers
that, under the settlement, they "can never sue Lyft again."
One of the objecting drivers, Kelsey Tilander, became a driver for
Lyft so that he could earn a good income while staying home part-
time with his daughter. Instead, Mr. Tilander said his rates have
been lowered by the company five times in 18 months and he's
working around the clock to make ends meet.
Mr. Tilander says he and other Lyft drivers want to have the
rights and benefits of employee status now and in the future,
rather than a settlement which provides for a small one-time sum
and approves of Lyft's misclassification scheme.
"The settlement money isn't that big of a deal. I would rather be
classified as an employee," Mr. Tilander said. "We're not covered
for unemployment, workers' compensation or Social Security. I
worked 48 hours for Lyft, but somehow I'm not an employee?"
"Everything that Lyft does indicates an employer-employee
relationship, and saying otherwise is subverting responsibility in
order to maximize profit," said Angelica Ferdinand, a driver for
Lyft and Uber.
The settlement would also lock-in Lyft's unfair contractual terms,
including terms that deprive drivers of a voice on the job; permit
Lyft's retaliation against drivers who seek to advance their
rights; and prohibit drivers from filing class-action claims
against Lyft in the future.
"We have filed NLRB charges against Lyft because the terms and
conditions it imposes on its drivers are illegal under federal
labor law, and we expect the court reviewing this settlement will
also recognize that fact," said Teague Paterson --
tpaterson@beesontayer.com -- attorney with Beeson, Tayer and
Bodine.
In the past year, hundreds of drivers at tech companies, including
Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, eBay and others in Silicon Valley, have
organized with Teamsters Local 853 in San Leandro, Calif. The
union has negotiated strong contracts for the drivers, including
good wages, benefits and workplace protections.
"If companies like Facebook can step up to the plate and make sure
drivers are treated with dignity and respect, there's no reason
why Lyft and other well-known 'rideshare' companies can't do the
same," Aloise said.
The Teamsters Union is part of a growing movement of labor, faith
and community-based organizations and workers challenging income
inequality in Silicon Valley through an innovative partnership
called Silicon Valley Rising. For more information, visit
http://siliconvalleyrising.org
For more information on tech worker organizing with the Teamsters,
visit http://teamster.org/tech-drivers-deserve-union
Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters --
http://www.teamster.org-- represents 1.4 million hardworking men
and women in the United States and Canada.
MANCILLA CONTRACTORS: Violated FLSA & IMWL, "Cortez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Cortez, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Silvia Mancilla d/b/a Silvia Mancilla
Contractors, Mancilla Contractors, Inc., and Benito Mancilla,
individually, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02670 (N.D. Ill.
(Eastern Div.), February 29, 2016), seeks to recover prejudgment
interest, unpaid overtime, compensation, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the Portal to Portal Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage (IMWL).
Mancilla Contractors is engaged in Building Construction business.
The Company is based in McHenry, Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marty Denis, Esq.
Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
Barlow, Kobata & Denis LLP
525 West Monroe, Suite 2360
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 648 5570
MARS INC: Appeal Filed in "Wirth" Class Action
----------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed captioned Christina Wirth, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated and Adam Wagner, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
- Appellants, v. Mars, Inc., Mars Petcare Us, Inc. and IAMS
Company, Defendants - Appellees, Case No. 16-55280 is an appeal
from a lower court ruling, Case No. 8:15-cv-01470-DOC-KES, U.S.
District Court for Central California, Santa Ana.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashley Anne Bede, Esq.
Steve Berman, Esq.
Hagens Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 623-7292
- and -
Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: (213) 330-7150
- and -
Kevin Kamuf Green, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
701 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 929-3340
MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Case Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that the District Court has
granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place
in the class action lawsuit by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
pending a decision on the appeal.
On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.
On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC
granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested
in the Company's petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's
decision on the petition.
On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties'
joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on
the appeal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.
Masimo Corporation is a global medical technology company that
develops, manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive
monitoring technologies.
MASIMO CORP: Appeal from Alabama Court's Decision Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that plaintiffs' appeal from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's
decision remains pending.
On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama.
On April 21, 2014, a further amended complaint was filed adding a
third participant. The complaint alleges product liability and
negligence claims in connection with pulse oximeters the Company
modified and provided at the request of study investigators for
use in the trial.
On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the
Company on all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's decision.
Masimo Corporation is a global medical technology company that
develops, manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive
monitoring technologies.
MDL 2081: Proposed Trial Plan Was Due March 15
----------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend the case, In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation.
In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the
divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that
may result from these cases.
In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by
Plaintiffs for class certification. In April 2015, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the class
certification ruling and remanded the case to the District Court
for further proceedings. In October 2015, the District Court again
granted the motion by Plaintiffs for class certification.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
According to the case docket, the Hon. Jan E. Dubois extended the
parties' deadline to submit a proposed trial plan as provided for
in Case Management Order No. 4, Section 2(a), until March 15,
2016.
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries are engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field.
MDL 2672: "Esneault" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Esneault v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05801, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California
(San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:16-cv-00708-CRB to the proceeding.
Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.
The Esneault case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California 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. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
FAYARD LAW
519 Florida Avenue, SW
Denham Springs, LA 70726
Telephone: (225) 664 0304
Facsimile: (225) 664 2010
E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com
- and -
Heidi M Gould, Esq.
HEIDI MABILE GOULD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
146 W. Livingston Place
Metairie, LA 70005
Telephone: (985) 413 8229
E-mail: heidigould@me.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joy Goldberg Braun, Esq.
April L. Watson, Esq.
SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3815
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 582 1500
Facsimile: (504) 582 1555
E-mail: jgb@sessions-law.com
alw@sessions-law.com
- and -
Keith W. McDaniel, Esq.
MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK (COVINGTON)
195 Greenbriar Blvd., Suite 200
Covington, LA 70433
Telephone: (504) 831 0946
Facsimile: (985) 809 9677
E-mail: kmcdaniel@mcsalaw.com
- and -
Sidney Jay Hardy, Esq.
MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK, ANZELMO, HARDY
909 Poydras Street, Suite 1000
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 846 8407
Facsimile: (800) 977 8810
E-mail: shardy@mcsalaw.com
MDL 2672: "Martin" Suit Consolidated in California
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Martin v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-20195, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California
(San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:16-cv-00712-CRB to the proceeding.
Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.
The Martin case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California 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. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
GILMAN LAW LLP
3301 Bonita Beach Rd., Suite 307
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Telephone: (239) 221 8301
Facsimile: (239) 676 8224
E-mail: Kgilman@GilmanPastor.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Roberts" Sues Over Vehicle Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Clive Roberts, Gina McVey, John Lingua, Gustavo
Ragaerrecart, Terry Garmey, Henry Silverio, Chandrakant Patel,
Darrell Feller, Randolph Rolle, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01063-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., February 25,
2016), seeks temporary and permanent enjoinment, injunctive
relief, restitution, refund of full vehicle price or overpayment
or diminution in value of said vehicles, damages, including
punitive damages, costs and disgorgement, monetary relief, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and such
other or further relief resulting from violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Breach of Contract, Fraudulent
Concealment, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law,
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
violations of the California False Advertising Law, violations of
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Maryland Consumer Protection Act, violations of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, violation of Montana Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, violations of the
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violations of the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act of the District of
Columbia.
Plaintiffs are Mercedes Benz owners claiming that Mercedes diesel
car emissions exceed those standards set by the EPA.
Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
corporation whose principal place of business is 303 Perimeter
Center North, Suite 202, Atlanta, Georgia, 30346. Mercedes,
through its various entities, designs, manufactures, markets,
distributes and sell Mercedes automobiles.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
David Freydin, Esq.
Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID FREYDIN, PC
8707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 305
Skokie, IL 60077
Tel: (847) 972-6157
Fax: (866) 897-7577
Email: david.freydin@freydinlaw.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604
Tel: (513) 345-4291
Fax: (513) 345-8294
Email: JGoldenberg@gs-legal.com
MILLER ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on March 15 disclosed that a complaint has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Miller Energy Resources, Inc.
("Miller Energy" or the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to
the September 6, 2012 Registration Statement and Prospectuses, or
during the period of September 6, 2012 and April 29, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period") alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against certain of the Company's officers, and the Company's
auditors.
If you purchased shares of Miller Energy pursuant and/or traceable
to the September 6, 2012 Registration Statement and Prospectuses,
or during the period of September 6, 2012 and
April 29, 2015, inclusive, and wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at:
http://is.gd/ABlnm2
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, and in the
Registration Statement and Prospectuses issued, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and
prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public: (1) that Miller
Energy, members of Miller Energy's senior management, Board of
Directors, and Audit Committee repeatedly made false and
misleading statements relating to Miller Energy's business and
financial condition and the value of its assets, and violated GAAP
in reporting and accounting for Miller Energy's assets,
liabilities, revenues, expenses, net income and cash flow, which
artificially-inflated the price of Miller Energy's common stock
during the Class Period; and (2) Miller Energy's auditors, first
Sherb & Co., LLP, who served as Miller Energy's independent
registered public accounting firm from August 2008 until February
2011, and later KPMG, LLP, committed a litany of errors and did
little else but rubber-stamp Miller Energy management's gross
over-valuations of the Alaska Assets, certifying Miller Energy's
false and misleading financial statements and rendering
unqualified opinions that those statements were fairly presented,
in all material respects. As a result of defendants' alleged
false and misleading statements, the price of Company's stock was
artificially inflated.
According to the Complaint, on December 10, 2014, Miller Energy
disclosed that it was taking a $265.3 million impairment charge on
the Alaska Assets, specifically the Redoubt Shoal field. Then, on
March 12, 2015, Miller Energy disclosed that it was taking another
$150 million impairment charge on the Alaska Assets.
Finally, on April 29, 2015, Miller Energy disclosed that the SEC
had notified the Company that the agency staff had made a
preliminary determination to recommend civil action against Miller
Energy related to its accounting for the 2009 Alaska Asset
acquisition.
On this news, shares in Miller Energy dropped over 21%, closing at
$0.73 on April 30, 2015, on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall or Peter Allocco. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
MIZUHO BANK: Loses Bid to Move Mt Gox Class Action to Japan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pete Rizzo, writing for CoinDesk, reports that a US district judge
has rejected a claim by Mizuho Bank that a class action lawsuit
related to its relationship with failed bitcoin exchange Mt Gox
should be moved to Japan.
Once the largest global bitcoin exchange, Tokyo-based Mt Gox
collapsed in 2014, eventually filing for bankruptcy. Since then,
the exchange, and its founder and CEO Mark Karpeles, have been
embroiled in a lawsuits from customers seeking to recover millions
in customer funds that remain unaccounted for.
Mizuho was first named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit
brought by former exchange users in March 2014 as it served as Mt
Gox's banking partner, receiving fiat funds deposited by customers
into the exchange and held by Mt Gox.
In the latest ruling, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman
criticized actions taken by the bank, suggesting it profited from
its affiliation with Mt Gox even as it sought to limit the number
and amount of customer withdrawals over concerns regarding its
liability for deficiencies in the exchange's business model.
Judge Feinerman wrote:
"Mizuho's qualms about handling Mt. Gox's business did not extend,
however, to receiving fiat currency from Mt. Gox users for deposit
into the Mt. Gox account. Even as it limited and then barred
withdrawals, Mizuho continued to accept deposits from Mt Gox
users, earning revenue from the associated service fees."
The ruling goes so far as to allege that Mizuho prevented Mt Gox
from telling customers that the bank was the cause of withdrawal
issues, or that it was seeking to terminate its relationship with
the now-defunct bitcoin exchange.
"Mizuho knew that if Mt Gox's members learned of its prohibition
on withdrawals of fiat currency from Mt Gox's Mizuho account,
members would stop making deposits and Mizuho would stop
collecting the associated fees," Judge Feinerman wrote.
The class action lawsuit alleges that Mizuho "tortiously
interfered" with the plaintiffs agreements with Mt Gox by
affecting its ability to conduct business, and that it unjustly
enriched itself through these actions.
In statements, representatives from Edelson PC lauded the
decision, stating:
"Mizuho Bank is alleged to have committed fraud specifically
against US citizens. The court was correct to allow these victims
their day in a US court."
Lawsuit relocation
While Judge Feinerman denied Mizuho's request, he did find that
the class action lawsuit would need to produce a new plaintiff, or
otherwise be required to move to the Central District of
California.
At issue is that the lawsuit was brought by Illinois resident
Gregory Greene, an individual who never sent fiat funds to the
exchange, and as a result, never had "transactional contacts" with
Mizuho.
"Plaintiffs have not established that Mizuho Bank had sufficient
suit-related contacts with Illinois to meet the standard
articulated in Walden v Fiore, or that their claims arose out of
Mizuho Bank's contracts with Illinois," the judge wrote.
As a result, Judge Feinerman stated that the case should be moved
to California, as plaintiff Joseph Lack transferred funds from his
local bank to Mizuho.
"Mizuho knowingly accepted a deposit from a bank it knew to be in
California and from somebody it knew to be a California resident,
knowing that it would not allow that money to be withdrawn,
despite having concealed the no-withdrawal policy for the purpose
of enticing such deposits," he wrote.
However, prior to transferring the case, the judge is allowing the
lawsuit to add an additional plaintiff who might better represent
the lawsuit and its grounds for location in Illinois.
Judge Feinerman concluded:
"If counsel fails to do so, this case will be transferred to the
Central District of California."
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: "Carter" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
Allen Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Molina Healthcare of California, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01399 (C.D. Cal., February 29, 2016),
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).
Molina Healthcare of California is a managed care company with its
state of incorporation and its corporate headquarters in Long
Beach, Los Angeles County, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Rosenthal, Esq.
WESTGATE LAW
15760 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 880
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 200 1497
Facsimile: (818) 869 2208
E-mail: Matt@westgatelaw.com
- and -
G. Thomas Martin III, Esq.
Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Telephone: (323) 940 1700
Facsimile: (323) 238 8095
E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
Nick@mblawapc.com
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Violated TCPA, "Carter" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Allen Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Molina Healthcare of California,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00364-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal., February
29, 2016), seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Molina Healthcare of California is a managed care company with its
state of incorporation and its corporate headquarters in Long
Beach, Los Angeles County, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Rosenthal, Esq.
WESTGATE LAW
15760 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 880
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 200 1497
Facsimile: (818) 869 2208
E-mail: Matt@westgatelaw.com
- and -
G. Thomas Martin III, Esq.
Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Telephone: (323) 940 1700
Facsimile: (323) 238 8095
E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
Nick@mblawapc.com
MONSTER INC: Violated Warranty Act, "Grays" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Antonette Grays, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Grays v. Monster, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00693 (N.D. Cal., February 11, 2016),
seeks to recover damages pursuant to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Monster manufactures and supplies high performance audio cables
that connect audio/video components for computers, computer games,
home applications, car interiors, and professional use. The
company offers HDMI cables, audio cables, video cables, A/V power
centers, voltage stabilizers, uninterruptible power supplies,
power cords, cable management solutions, flat screen mounts, and
remote control systems for home theater applications; and over-
ear, on-ear, in-ear, and noise cancelling solutions for
headphones.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antonette Grays, Esq.
PRO SE
MOTION PICTURE ASSOC: "Forsyth" Sues Over Smoking Scenes in Films
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Forsyth, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Motion Picture
Association Of America, Inc., a New York corporation, The Walt
Disney Company, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures
Entertainment Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,
Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and
National Association of Theatre Owners, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00935-SK (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2016), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, punitive damages, restitution, reasonable
attorneys' fees and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation, unfair
competition, false advertising, private and public nuisance and
breach of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiff accuses the Motion Picture Association of America and
its members of allowing scenes of smoking individuals in PG-13
movies despite strong surgeon general campaigns on the ill-effects
of smoking.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq.
Timothy Forsyth, Esq.
Carey G. Been, Esq.
Sarah R. Holloway, Esq.
KELLER GROVER, LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Tel: (415) 543-1305
Fax: (415) 543-7861
Email: sholloway@kellergrover.com
jfkeller@kellergrover.com
cbeen@kellergrover.com
- and -
David Schachman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHACHMAN, P.C.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 2970
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312) 427-9500
Fax: (312) 268-2425
Email: ds@schachmanlaw.com
- and -
John G. Jacobs, Esq.
Bryan G. Kolton, Esq.
JACOBS KOLTON, CHTD.
122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312) 427-4000
Fax: (312) 268-2425
Email: jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com
bgkolton@jacobskolton.com
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: High Court Urged to Hear Likeness Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Wiedey, writing for Sporting News, reports that when
lawsuits began to challenge the alleged presence of real player
likenesses in college sports video games around seven years ago it
seemed inevitable that a decision would ultimately have to come
down from the Supreme Court. With the NCAA's rules centered on
amateurism and huge revenue sources such as broadcasting rights
and merchandising later taking center stage -- making video games
just a small part of the conflict in question -- the stakes were
raised and an ultimate appeal to the highest court was assured.
On March 15, the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit led by Ed
O'Bannon officially made the request for the Supreme Court to hear
the case. There's no guarantee the split court of eight justices
will take, but given its high-profile nature the chances seem
higher than most. Only about 0.2 percent of cases petitioned to
the Supreme Court are heard.
The O'Bannon class actually beat the NCAA at the lower court. So
why are they the ones appealing? Last September, the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the antitrust ruling against the NCAA
but struck down the part of the ruling that would have allowed
student-athletes to receive money above the cost of attendance.
They would have been able to get up to $5,000 a year in deferred
compensation based on the decision from district judge
Claudia Wilken. The NCAA is also expected to make an appeal to
the Supreme Court, but that would be over the antitrust aspect of
the ruling rather than the question of compensation the plaintiffs
are challenging now.
Without the ability to include real players in the products by
paying for their rights it's unlikely any developer including EA
Sports would take on the massive project of rebuilding a college
sports video game. The NCAA and individual colleges and
conferences, many who dropped out even before the cancellation of
the NCAA Football series, probably would not even consider coming
back without definitively knowing that they would be completely in
the clear of any potential future litigation.
There's no evidence that a generic product lacking real teams,
players, conferences and bowl season, would be supported by
consumers to an extent that would justify the extensive
development costs that would be required. For a summary of how
things got to where they are now with the lawsuits and involvement
of video games, check out this article from last year.
A decision on the O'Bannon case will be made by the Supreme Court
in whatever action they take. If they do hear the appeal, they
could reinstate the initially granted ability to compensate
college athletes above their attendance costs or they could affirm
the 9th Circuit's decision to block it. A split decision given
the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the previous
ruling.
If they don't hear the appeal from the O'Bannon plaintiffs at all,
the return of college sports video games will remain in limbo,
with other cases such the one brought by attorney Jeffrey Kessler
against the NCAA and its major conferences the next to watch.
That one attempts to go beyond just shattering the cap of
attendance-related costs for athletes, as the end-goal is to
create a completely open and free market in college sports.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Executive Acknowledges Football-Brain Damage Link
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Chappell, writing for National Public Radio, reports that a
discussion on Capitol Hill about concussion research brought a
startling moment on March 14, as an NFL executive acknowledged for
the first time that football has been linked to a degenerative
brain disease.
Jeff Miller, the NFL's executive vice president for health and
safety, admitted the connection when he was asked about research
by Boston University neuropathologist Dr. Ann McKee, who has
reported finding signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the
brains of 90 out of 94 former pro football players -- and 45 out
of 55 former college players.
Both Mr. Miller and Dr. McKee were testifying at the hearing by
the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. After Dr. McKee urged
taking steps "immediately" to limit the risk to young athletes,
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., asked Mr. Miller if he thinks
football and CTE are linked.
"Well certainly Dr. McKee's research shows that a number of
retired NFL players were diagnosed with CTE, so the answer to that
question is certainly yes," Mr. Miller said. He added, "but
there's also a number of questions that come with that."
Mr. Schakowsky then reminded Mr. Miller that Dr. Mitchel Berger, a
neurosurgeon who's also the NFL's lead physician on brain
injuries, had said something very different as recently as this
year, around the time of the Super Bowl.
As Steve Fainaru, an ESPN reporter who was at the March 14
hearing, tells Morning Edition, Dr. Berger "answered no to the
exact same question" that Mr. Miller was asked in Washington on
March 14.
The NFL, Mr. Fainaru says, "has for years basically punted on this
question. They've never really come close to acknowledging that
football can cause brain damage. And that question has been at
the center of a class-action lawsuit against the league, a lot of
really bad publicity that the league has endured for years. So, I
think for people who follow this, it was really quite surprising."
In recent seasons, the NFL has changed rules and protocols in an
attempt to reduce the number and severity of helmet-to-helmet hits
in the game. But in January, the league issued an injury report
"that said the number of concussions diagnosed in 2015 had
increased by 32 percent from the previous year."
NATIONAL RESPONSE: "Kelly" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Min. Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Kelly, Plaintiff, v. National Response Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00962 (E.D. N.Y., February 25, 2016),
seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the New York State
Department of Labor Regulations.
Defendant is a foreign business corporation with corporate
headquarters located at 3500 Sunrise Highway, Building 200, Suite
200, Great River, New York 11739. It provides emergency and
environmental response to marine and land-based oil spill
incidents where Kelly was employed as a dispatcher/duty officer.
He claim to have received below minimum wage rates and did not
receive overtime pay in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO
503 Route 111
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
Fax: (631) 942-8393
Email: peter@overtimelawny.com
MIZUHO BANK: Loses Bid to Move Mt Gox Class Action to Japan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pete Rizzo, writing for CoinDesk, reports that a US district judge
has rejected a claim by Mizuho Bank that a class action lawsuit
related to its relationship with failed bitcoin exchange Mt Gox
should be moved to Japan.
Once the largest global bitcoin exchange, Tokyo-based Mt Gox
collapsed in 2014, eventually filing for bankruptcy. Since then,
the exchange, and its founder and CEO Mark Karpeles, have been
embroiled in a lawsuits from customers seeking to recover millions
in customer funds that remain unaccounted for.
Mizuho was first named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit
brought by former exchange users in March 2014 as it served as Mt
Gox's banking partner, receiving fiat funds deposited by customers
into the exchange and held by Mt Gox.
In the latest ruling, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman
criticized actions taken by the bank, suggesting it profited from
its affiliation with Mt Gox even as it sought to limit the number
and amount of customer withdrawals over concerns regarding its
liability for deficiencies in the exchange's business model.
Judge Feinerman wrote:
"Mizuho's qualms about handling Mt. Gox's business did not extend,
however, to receiving fiat currency from Mt. Gox users for deposit
into the Mt. Gox account. Even as it limited and then barred
withdrawals, Mizuho continued to accept deposits from Mt Gox
users, earning revenue from the associated service fees."
The ruling goes so far as to allege that Mizuho prevented Mt Gox
from telling customers that the bank was the cause of withdrawal
issues, or that it was seeking to terminate its relationship with
the now-defunct bitcoin exchange.
"Mizuho knew that if Mt Gox's members learned of its prohibition
on withdrawals of fiat currency from Mt Gox's Mizuho account,
members would stop making deposits and Mizuho would stop
collecting the associated fees," Judge Feinerman wrote.
The class action lawsuit alleges that Mizuho "tortiously
interfered" with the plaintiffs agreements with Mt Gox by
affecting its ability to conduct business, and that it unjustly
enriched itself through these actions.
In statements, representatives from Edelson PC lauded the
decision, stating:
"Mizuho Bank is alleged to have committed fraud specifically
against US citizens. The court was correct to allow these victims
their day in a US court."
Lawsuit relocation
While Judge Feinerman denied Mizuho's request, he did find that
the class action lawsuit would need to produce a new plaintiff, or
otherwise be required to move to the Central District of
California.
At issue is that the lawsuit was brought by Illinois resident
Gregory Greene, an individual who never sent fiat funds to the
exchange, and as a result, never had "transactional contacts" with
Mizuho.
"Plaintiffs have not established that Mizuho Bank had sufficient
suit-related contacts with Illinois to meet the standard
articulated in Walden v Fiore, or that their claims arose out of
Mizuho Bank's contracts with Illinois," the judge wrote.
As a result, Judge Feinerman stated that the case should be moved
to California, as plaintiff Joseph Lack transferred funds from his
local bank to Mizuho.
"Mizuho knowingly accepted a deposit from a bank it knew to be in
California and from somebody it knew to be a California resident,
knowing that it would not allow that money to be withdrawn,
despite having concealed the no-withdrawal policy for the purpose
of enticing such deposits," he wrote.
However, prior to transferring the case, the judge is allowing the
lawsuit to add an additional plaintiff who might better represent
the lawsuit and its grounds for location in Illinois.
Judge Feinerman concluded:
"If counsel fails to do so, this case will be transferred to the
Central District of California."
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: High Court Urged to Hear Likeness Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Wiedey, writing for Sporting News, reports that when
lawsuits began to challenge the alleged presence of real player
likenesses in college sports video games around seven years ago it
seemed inevitable that a decision would ultimately have to come
down from the Supreme Court. With the NCAA's rules centered on
amateurism and huge revenue sources such as broadcasting rights
and merchandising later taking center stage -- making video games
just a small part of the conflict in question -- the stakes were
raised and an ultimate appeal to the highest court was assured.
On March 15, the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit led by Ed
O'Bannon officially made the request for the Supreme Court to hear
the case. There's no guarantee the split court of eight justices
will take, but given its high-profile nature the chances seem
higher than most. Only about 0.2 percent of cases petitioned to
the Supreme Court are heard.
The O'Bannon class actually beat the NCAA at the lower court. So
why are they the ones appealing? Last September, the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the antitrust ruling against the NCAA
but struck down the part of the ruling that would have allowed
student-athletes to receive money above the cost of attendance.
They would have been able to get up to $5,000 a year in deferred
compensation based on the decision from district judge
Claudia Wilken. The NCAA is also expected to make an appeal to
the Supreme Court, but that would be over the antitrust aspect of
the ruling rather than the question of compensation the plaintiffs
are challenging now.
Without the ability to include real players in the products by
paying for their rights it's unlikely any developer including EA
Sports would take on the massive project of rebuilding a college
sports video game. The NCAA and individual colleges and
conferences, many who dropped out even before the cancellation of
the NCAA Football series, probably would not even consider coming
back without definitively knowing that they would be completely in
the clear of any potential future litigation.
There's no evidence that a generic product lacking real teams,
players, conferences and bowl season, would be supported by
consumers to an extent that would justify the extensive
development costs that would be required. For a summary of how
things got to where they are now with the lawsuits and involvement
of video games, check out this article from last year.
A decision on the O'Bannon case will be made by the Supreme Court
in whatever action they take. If they do hear the appeal, they
could reinstate the initially granted ability to compensate
college athletes above their attendance costs or they could affirm
the 9th Circuit's decision to block it. A split decision given
the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the previous
ruling.
If they don't hear the appeal from the O'Bannon plaintiffs at all,
the return of college sports video games will remain in limbo,
with other cases such the one brought by attorney Jeffrey Kessler
against the NCAA and its major conferences the next to watch.
That one attempts to go beyond just shattering the cap of
attendance-related costs for athletes, as the end-goal is to
create a completely open and free market in college sports.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Executive Acknowledges Football-Brain Damage Link
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Chappell, writing for National Public Radio, reports that a
discussion on Capitol Hill about concussion research brought a
startling moment on March 14, as an NFL executive acknowledged for
the first time that football has been linked to a degenerative
brain disease.
Jeff Miller, the NFL's executive vice president for health and
safety, admitted the connection when he was asked about research
by Boston University neuropathologist Dr. Ann McKee, who has
reported finding signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the
brains of 90 out of 94 former pro football players -- and 45 out
of 55 former college players.
Both Mr. Miller and Dr. McKee were testifying at the hearing by
the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. After Dr. McKee urged
taking steps "immediately" to limit the risk to young athletes,
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., asked Mr. Miller if he thinks
football and CTE are linked.
"Well certainly Dr. McKee's research shows that a number of
retired NFL players were diagnosed with CTE, so the answer to that
question is certainly yes," Mr. Miller said. He added, "but
there's also a number of questions that come with that."
Mr. Schakowsky then reminded Mr. Miller that Dr. Mitchel Berger, a
neurosurgeon who's also the NFL's lead physician on brain
injuries, had said something very different as recently as this
year, around the time of the Super Bowl.
As Steve Fainaru, an ESPN reporter who was at the March 14
hearing, tells Morning Edition, Dr. Berger "answered no to the
exact same question" that Mr. Miller was asked in Washington on
March 14.
The NFL, Mr. Fainaru says, "has for years basically punted on this
question. They've never really come close to acknowledging that
football can cause brain damage. And that question has been at
the center of a class-action lawsuit against the league, a lot of
really bad publicity that the league has endured for years. So, I
think for people who follow this, it was really quite surprising."
In recent seasons, the NFL has changed rules and protocols in an
attempt to reduce the number and severity of helmet-to-helmet hits
in the game. But in January, the league issued an injury report
"that said the number of concussions diagnosed in 2015 had
increased by 32 percent from the previous year."
NOODLES & CO: Violated FLSA & Wage Order, "Carter" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tammie Carter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Noodles & Company, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00319-CMA (Dist.
Col., February 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime
premium pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado Wage Order.
Noodles & Company develops and operates fast casual restaurants in
the United States. It offers cooked-to-order dishes, including
noodles and pasta, soups, salads, sandwiches, and appetizers. As
of December 29, 2015, the company operated 492 restaurants
comprising 422 company-owned and 70 franchised locations, across
35 states and the District of Columbia. Noodles & Company was
founded in 1995 and is based in Broomfield, Colorado.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
LEWIS KUHN SWAN PC
620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Telephone: (719) 694 3000
Facsimile: (866) 515 8628
Email: plewis@lewiskuhnswan.com
mkuhn@lewiskuhnswan.com
aswan@lewiskuhnswan.com
- and -
Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
10601 Mission Rd, Suite 100
Leawood, KS 66206
Telephone: (913) 766 5585
Facsimile: (816) 875 5069
E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
www.rmlegalgroup.com
NORDSTROM INC: Watches Contain Inferior Parts, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Nordstrom's HauteLook sells
what it calls vintage Rolex watches that are damaged and contain
non-Rolex and inferior parts, according to a class action filed in
federal court in Los Angeles.
NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay OT, "Arcadio" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Renato Arcadio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Northwood Hospitality LLC, a Delaware Limited Company;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC613884 (Cal. Super.,
March 16, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay proper wage and overtime compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Northwood Hospitality LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
which owns and operates nine properties throughout the world,
including the New York Palace Hotel in Manhattan, the Alden
Houston Hotel in Houston, Texas and the Defense Plaza building in
Paris, France.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (323) 857-5900
NUTIVA INC: "Jones" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jones v. Nutiva, Inc., Case No.
C16-00014, was removed from Contra Costa Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California
(Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-
00711-KAW to the proceeding.
Nutiva an organic foods manufacturer. The Company produces cooking
oil, butter and plant-protein based products. It is based in
Richmond, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Kenneth Joseph
THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
4125 West Point Loma Blvd., No. 206
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 767 0356
Facsimile: (619) 331 2943
E-mail: pkjoseph@umich.edu
- and -
John Joseph Fitzgerald IV, Esq.
Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
Melanie Rae Persinger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
Hillcrest Professional Building
3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692 3840
Facsimile: (619) 362 9555
E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew Ryan Orr, Esq.
CALL & JENSEN
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 717 3000
Facsimile: (949) 717 3100
E-mail: morr@calljensen.com
OILTANKING NORTH: Fails to Pay OT, "Porterie" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Porterie v. Oiltanking North America, LLC, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00070 (S.D. Tex., March 16, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation and unpaid
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Oiltanking North America, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
engaged in the business of owning and operating the storage and
distribution of various liquid chemicals.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Jones, Esq.
SLOAN, BAGLEY, HATCHER & PERRY LAW FIRM
3000 Smith Street, Suite 4
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 520-8833
Facsimile: (713) 520-9933
E-mail: jjones@sloanfirm.com
OREGON: Owes $1.4-Bil. for Timber, 15 Counties Claim
----------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
an Oregon county claims in a proposed class action in Albany, Ore.
that the state owes it and 14 other counties $1.4 billion from
lost timber revenue.
Linn County filed the lawsuit against the state on March 10,
claiming Oregon mismanaged the revenue received from timber
harvests on state lands. Linn County is the northwest part of the
state, and much of its economy involves lumber industries.
In January, the county announced plans to sue the state for
mismanaging timber revenues, telling the governor and state
forester, various media outlets reported. It made good on its
plans this month, filing the $1.4 billion breach of contract
lawsuit against the state.
Linn County and the other proposed class members are called
"forest trust land" counties. Based on a 1939 law called the
Forest Acquisition Act, the state allowed counties to convey
forests to the state to manage.
The state is entitled to keep some of the revenue, but is
obligated to return the rest to the counties, the 13-page
complaint states.
According to the lawsuit, Oregon has not "maximized the potential
revenue that should be generated from the forest trust lands."
The state is required to "secure the greatest permanent value" of
the forest lands to the counties, which have more than 650,000
acres of state-run forests.
The figure of $1.4 billion comes from revenue allegedly lost since
2001, around $35 million a year.
"This breach of contract has had devastating effects on local
communities that have seen both poverty and unemployment rates
skyrocket in the last two decades as a result of the current
practices," Linn County Board of Commissioners Chair Roger Nyquist
said in a statement.
The Oregon Department of Forestry said it is reviewing the
lawsuit, and that it is "proud of its work managing state
forestlands to achieve the greatest permanent value for the
state."
After receiving the notice of the intent to sue, the department
sent an open letter to the county commissioners from the forest
trust lands, expressing disappointment in the plan, "particularly
at a time when we feel progress was underway."
The letter, signed by Oregon State Forester Doug Decker and Oregon
Board of Forestry Chair Tom Imeson, encouraged communication
between the parties, and tried to clear up a misunderstanding that
the Justice Department instructed them not to communicate.
Some environmental groups are critical of the idea that timber
harvests should continue to be a critical part of funding
counties' services.
"It appears the counties missed the memo that the state is not
required to log to infinity in these state lands," Joshua Laughlin
of Cascadia Wildlands told the Eugene Register Guard in January
when the plan was announced. "They also have a duty to protect
clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities
and other values held closely by Oregonians."
The other forest trust land counties are: Benton, Clackamas,
Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane,
Lincoln, Marion, Polk, Tillamook, and Washington.
Linn County is represented by John DiLorenzo --
johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine in Portland.
PA HIGHER EDUCATION: "Poronsky" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Poronsky, individually, and as representative on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), the Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00145 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Div., February 10,
2016), seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, monetary
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation
costs, pursuant to the Service Members Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
PHEAA headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with regional
offices throughout the state, is the quasi-governmental agency
that administers several State higher education student financial
aid programs. Created in 1963 by the Pennsylvania General
Assembly. Today, PHEAA is a national provider of student financial
aid services, serving millions of students and thousands of
schools through its loan guaranty, loan servicing, financial aid
processing, outreach and other student aid programs.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Gravely, Esq.
GRAVELY & PEARSON, L.L.P.
425 Soledad, Suite 600
San Antonio, TX 78205
Telephone: (210) 472 1111
Facsimile: (210) 472 1110
E-mail: mgravely@gplawfirm.com
- and -
M. Chad Trammell. Esq.
TRAMMELL PIAZZA LAW FIRM, PLLC
418 North State Line Avenue
Texarkana, AR 71854
Telephone: (870) 779 1860
Facsimile: (870) 779 1861
E-mail: chad@trammellpiazza.com
- and -
Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
James C. Wyly, Esq.
WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC
4004 Texas Boulevard
Texarkana, TX 75503
Telephone: (903) 334 8646
Facsimile: (903) 334 8645
E-mail: srommel@wylyrommel.com
jwyly@wylyrommel.com
- and -
John S. Odom, Jr., Esq.
JONES & ODOM, LLP
2124 Fairfield Ave.
Shreveport, LA 71104
Telephone: (318) 221 1600
Facsimile: (318) 425 1256
E-mail: john.odom@jodplaw.com
PATTERSON CO: Violated Antitrust Law, Comfort Care Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comfort Care Family Dental, P.C., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patterson Co., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00696-BMC-GRB E.D.N.Y. (Brooklyn),
February 11, 2016), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's
alleged antitrust violation regarding dental supplies.
Patterson Companies distributes dental, veterinary, and
rehabilitation supplies. Its Dental Supply segment offers
consumable dental supplies; impression and restorative materials;
hand pieces; hand instruments; sterilization products;
anesthetics; infection control products; paper, cotton, and other
disposable products; and toothbrushes and dental accessories. The
Company is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric Cramer, Esq.
Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875 3000
Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
jripley@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Teresa Becvar, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
205 N Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 233 1550
Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Kenneth Bruce Pickle Jr., Esq.
John Daniel Radice, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM
34 Sunset Blvd
Long Beach, NJ 08008
Telephone: (646) 245 8502
Facsimile: (609) 385 0745
E-mail: kpickle@radicelawfirm.com
jradice@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Colin Kass, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 416 6890
Facsimile: (202) 416 6899
E-mail: ckass@proskauer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James J. Long, Esq.
Jay William Schlosser, Esq.
Scott M. Flaherty, Esq.
BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A.
2200 Ids Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 977 8582
Facsimile: (612) 977 8650
E-mail: jlong@briggs.com
jschlosser@briggs.com
flaherty@briggs.com
- and -
Michael B. Miller, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
250 West 55 Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 468 8000
Facsimile: (212) 468 7900
E-mail: mbmiller@mofo.com
- and -
Howard D. Scher, Esq.
Carrie G. Amezcua, Esq.
Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
Kenneth L. Racowski, Esq.
Thomas P. Manning, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
50 S 16th Street, Suite 3200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 665 3920
Facsimile: (215) 665 8760
E-mail: howard.scher@bipc.com
carrie.amezcua@bipc.com
jackson.warren@bipc.com
kenneth.racowski@bipc.com
thomas.manning@bipc.com
PRIDE MOBILITY: Suit to Test New Class Action Opt-Out Regime
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Balmain, Esq. -- cbalmain@whitecase.com -- J. Mark Gidley,
Esq. -- mgidley@whitecase.com -- James R.M. Killick, Esq., Mark D.
Powell, Esq. and John Reynolds, Esq., of White & Case, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that a new opt-out class action
regime was introduced into the UK on 1 October 2015 under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the "CRA"). Since then, practitioners
have been waiting patiently; intrigued to see when the first claim
would be brought. Six months on, the first claim has now been
launched on behalf of a putative class of pensioners and other UK-
based buyers of mobility scooters.
This first action has the potential to reveal the true impact of
this new form of collective redress for purchasers within and
outside the UK. It may also reveal the likely shape of such
claims, their practical scope, and their limitations.
A new era
Under the regime introduced by the CRA, it is no longer necessary
to bring a collective action on behalf of a group of claimants who
have actively "opted-in" to the claim. Instead, in competition
cases, a representative action may be brought before the
Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") on behalf of a class of
claimants on an "opt-out" basis; that is, all members of the class
domiciled in the UK are represented unless they actively choose to
opt-out from this class. Claimants domiciled outside the UK may
also choose to opt-in to the action.
The facts
In 2014, a manufacturer of mobility scooters for the disabled and
elderly, Pride Mobility Products, was found guilty by the Office
of Fair Trading ("OFT") of breaching competition rules. Pride
Mobility had sought to achieve unlawful resale price maintenance,
having privately prohibited online retailers from advertising
scooters for sale below their recommended retail price. The
National Pensioners Convention ("NPC"), a pensioners' welfare
association, has launched a class competition claim valued at up
to GBP7.7 million on behalf of potentially overcharged customers.
They are now publicising the claim, looking for other class
members to come forward.
Funding and risk management
The claim sheds light on how such class actions are likely to be
funded. In the US, claims are typically brought on a percentage
contingency fee basis (e.g., 30 percent of the class's damages
recovery). However, the comparable fee model in the UK (Damages
Based Agreements) is expressly disallowed in these types of
action; in short, American-style contingency fees are prohibited
in UK collective actions. Instead, the NPC's class action has
been brought using a combination of a conditional fee agreement
(providing for a fee uplift to the lawyers in the event of a
successful outcome) and after-the-event insurance (to protect
against the representative's potential adverse costs exposure).
Such complex fee structures are often assembled with the backing
of third party litigation funders, who will provide funding for
legal fees and after-the-event insurance, in return for a portion
of any damages recovered. An important step in the proceedings
will be for the CAT to review the proposed fee structure and
decide whether the sums payable to the representative's lawyers
and any third party funders are proportionate. Potential
claimants and defendants alike, as well as funders, will be
watching this case closely for indications of what the Tribunal
will consider acceptable.
Since the class claim is based on the OFT's infringement decision,
the CAT will accept that the defendant is liable for the
infringement in question, with the issues in the case likely to
turn on questions of causation and quantum. So, while the
claimants' solicitors, insurers and any funders involved will have
assumed a degree of commercial risk in bringing this claim, it is
a calculated one.
The empathy that this particular claimant class is likely to
induce, and the publicity the claim will attract, is also unlikely
to have escaped those who are driving it and who have an interest
in showcasing this new type of action.
Contrasts with the US regime
This first action is extremely modest by comparison to the class
action claims brought in US antitrust cases. There, the pro-
plaintiff costs rules (attorney's fees are recoverable by statute
on top of the damages award), joint and several liability of each
defendant for the entirety of the damages exposure, the lack of
contribution, and the availability of trial by jury and treble
damages (three times actual damages), all tip the risk/reward
analysis heavily in favor of bringing such claims.
Nevertheless, although the NPC's scooter action is a modest first
step, it is one that tests the boundaries of the UK regime and may
blaze a trail for more ambitious, higher value claims in the
future.
Next steps
The CRA is designed to encourage informal resolution of
representative actions. So, despite the fanfare with which the
claim was brought, it is possible that the action could prompt
without prejudice discussions, with no further formal steps taken.
Instead, a collective settlement (which itself would have to be
mandated by the CAT) could be reached (in the United States,
virtually all antitrust class actions are settled or dismissed at
an early stage).
If not, the next phase of the proceedings will be for the
representative to apply to the CAT for a Collective Proceedings
Order, permitting it to bring the class action. Amongst other
things, this would determine the scope of the class of claimants,
an issue which could well be hotly contested.
Practitioners and consumer groups alike will be watching closely,
as this new field opens out before them.
PROVIDE COMMERCE: No Arbitration for "Long" Suit, Cal. App. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Provide Commerce, Inc. appeals from an order denying its petition
to compel arbitration of certain consumer fraud claims brought by
Plaintiff Brett Long on behalf of himself and a putative class of
California consumers who purchased flower arrangements through
Provide's website, ProFlowers.com. Provide sought to compel
arbitration based on a provision contained in the company's "Terms
of Use," which were viewable via a hyperlink displayed at the
bottom of each page on the ProFlowers.com website.
The Terms of Use on ProFlowers.com fall into a category of
Internet contracts commonly referred to as "browsewrap"
agreements. Unlike the other common form of Internet contract --
known as "clickwrap" agreements -- browsewrap agreements do not
require users to affirmatively click a button to confirm their
assent to the agreement's terms; instead, a user's assent is
inferred from his or her use of the website. Because assent must
be inferred, the determination of whether a binding browsewrap
agreement has been formed depends on whether the user had actual
or constructive knowledge of the website's terms and conditions.
Plaintiff opposed the petition to compel arbitration on the ground
that he was never prompted to assent to the Terms of Use, nor did
he actually read them, prior to placing his order on
ProFlowers.com. The trial court concluded the Terms of Use
hyperlinks were too inconspicuous to impose constructive knowledge
on Plaintiff, and denied the petition as such.
"We affirm," the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division Three, ruled in a March 17 decision available at
http://bit.ly/1Rw0ADffrom Leagle.com.
"We likewise find the hyperlinks and the overall design of the
ProFlowers.com website would not have put a reasonably prudent
Internet user on notice of Provide's Terms of Use, and Plaintiff
therefore did not unambiguously assent to the subject arbitration
provision simply by placing an order on ProFlowers.com," the
Appeals Court said.
The case captioned, BRETT LONG, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC., Defendant and Appellant., B257910 (Cal.
App. Ct.)
Counsel to Defendant and Appellant:
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Tel: 415 693 2181
Fax: 415 693 2222
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
- and -
Leo P. Norton, Esq.
Shannon Sorrells, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Tel: 858 550 6083
Fax: 858 550 6420
E-mail: lnorton@cooley.com
ssorrells@cooley.com
Counsel to Plaintiff and Respondent:
Paul D. Stevens, Esq.
Mayo L. Makarczyk, Esq.
MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Tel: (310) 396-9600
Fax: (310) 396-9635
- and -
Raquel A. Flaherty, Esq.
Sarah L. Gough, Esq
Flaherty Hennessy, LLP
8055 W Manchester Ave Ste 420
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
Tel: (310) 305-1280
Fax: (310) 305-1210
E-mail: raquel@fhattorneys.com
sarah@fhattorneys.com
PUMPCO ENERGY: "Williams" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaymun Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pumpco Energy Services,
Inc., Ronny Ortowski and Mark A. Songer, individually and as
officers of Pumpco Energy Services, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-00144 (W.D. Tex. San Antonio Div., February 10, 2016),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA)
Pumpco Energy Services, an energy services company, provides
pressure pumping services for the oil and gas industry in North
America. It offers fracturing, acidizing, miscellaneous pumping,
and cementing services. The company was founded in 1982 and is
based in Valley View, Texas with locations and facilities in
Cleburne, Pleasanton, and Barnhart, Texas; Minot, North Dakota;
and Towanda, Pennsylvania. Pumpco Energy Services, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Superior Energy Services, Inc. The Company is
based in Valley View, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221 0088
Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
PVH CORP: Violated UCL, FAL & CLRA, "Morrow" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Siobhan Morrow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PVH Corp., a Delaware corporation, PVH
Retail Stores, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Calvin Klein, Inc., a
New York corporation, Tommy Hilfiger Wholesale, Inc., a California
corporation, and Does 1- 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00348-L-RBB (S.D. Cal., February 10,
2016), seeks restitution and other equitable remedies, including
injunction under the California's Unfair Competition Laws (UCL);
California Business & Professions Code, California's False
Advertising Laws (FAL), and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA).
PVH Corp. operates as an apparel company worldwide. The company
designs and markets branded dress shirts, neckwear, sportswear,
jeans wear, intimate apparel, swim products, and to a lesser
extent, handbags, footwear, and other related products. It also
licenses its owned brands through a range of products. The
company's brand portfolio consists of nationally and
internationally recognized brand names, including the global
designer lifestyle brands.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 756 6994
Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
glynch@carlsonlynch.com
PATELCO CREDIT: Violated CLC & IWCW, "Briones" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Briones, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Patelco Credit Union and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. RG16805680 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, February 29,
2016), seeks to recover damages, restitution, attorney fees,
penalties, and value of injunctive relief, pursuant to California
Labor Code (CLC), California Business and Professions Code, Unfair
Practices Act and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage (IWCW)
Orders.
Patelco is a not-for-profit, full-service credit union. Defendant
owns and operates retail banks in the state of California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward J. Wynne (SBN 165819)
WYNNE LAW FIRM
100 Drakes Landing Road, Suite 275
Greenbrae, CA 94904
Telephone (415) 461 6400
Facsimile (415) 461 3900
E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
PATRIARCH PARTNERS: "Eisenstadt" Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
Warren Eisenstadt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Patriarch Partners LLC, and
XYZ Entities 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01009 (E.D.N.Y.
(Central Islip), February 29, 2016).
Patriarch Partners is a private equity firm specializing in
acquisition, buyouts, and turnaround investment in distressed
American companies and brands. The firm makes control investments
in its investee companies and also seeks board seats. Patriarch
Partners was founded in 2000 and is based in New York, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky LLP
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363 7500
Facsimile: (866) 367 6510
E-mail: ckupka@zlk.com
PIERCE MANUFACTURING: Violated WWPCL & FLSA, "Ehmann" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Ehmann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., a Domestic
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00247 (E.D. Wis.
(Green Bay Div.), February 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate, pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
(FLSA), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL).
Pierce Manufacturing designs and manufactures custom fire trucks
and apparatus. It offers custom and commercial chassis; PUC, a
multi-purpose response vehicle; and stock trucks. The company also
provides aerials that include platforms, ladders, tillers, and
sky-booms; pumpers; and rescue trucks, wildland trucks, pumper and
dry-side tankers, and homeland security apparatus. In addition, it
offers foam systems, side roll protection systems, frontal
airbags, tire protection, and elevated waterway systems, as well
as maintenance, training, and refurbishment services. Further, the
company provides T-shirts, men's apparel, ladies apparel,
outerwear, youth and infant apparel, and headwear. The Company is
located at Appleton, Wisconsin.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
Jesse R. Dill, Esq.
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780 1953
Facsimile: (262) 565 6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
jdill@walcheskeluzi.com
REA ENERGY: "Cessna" Suit Moved to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cessna et al. v. Rea Energy
Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 2015 GN 3973, was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Johnstown). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00042-KRG to the
proceeding.
REA Energy Cooperative offers electric services. The Company
constructs windmills, solar panels, and cogeneration plants, as
well as distributes electricity, and provides home electricity
services including generator solutions, heating and cooling
solutions, water heater management, installation of electrical
docking stations, and surge protection. The Cooperative is based
in Indiana, Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
MARCUS & MACK, P.C.
P.O. Box 1107
57 South 6th Street
Indiana, PA 15701
Telephone: (724) 349 5602
Facsimile: (724) 349 8362
E-mail: TFrederick@MarcusandMack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jesse D. Daniel, Esq.
THE DANIEL LAW GROUP PLLC
138 South Seventh Street
Indiana, PA 15701
Telephone: (724) 801 8629
Facsimile: (724) 801 8495
E-mail: DanielLawGroup@gmail.com
REDBACK COIL: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------
Rusty Hale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Redback Coil Tubing, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-00256-D
(W.D. Okla., March 16, 2016), alleges that the Defendant fails to
pay proper wage and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Redback Coil Tubing, LLC is an oil and gas service company
specializing in completion and production services, including coil
tubing services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
1150 Bissonnet
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
jbresler@fibichlaw.com
litkin@fibichlaw.com
adunlap@fibichlaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCHNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
RESTORED SURFACES: "Wesner" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
John Wesner, an individual and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, v. Restored Surfaces, Inc., doing business as
Surface Restoration, a Texas Corporation, Surface Connection,
Resurface Solutions, Inc., and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 30-
02015-00823306-CU-WT-CJC, was removed from the Orange County
Superior Court, to the US District Court of the Central District
of California (Southern Div. - Santa Ana). The District Court
assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00370-DOC-DFM to the proceeding.
Surface Restoration's line of business includes providing concrete
works. The Company is based in Troy Blauwiekel, Dallas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Gene Emilio, Esq.
Laurie M Cortez, Esq.
EMILIO LAW GROUP
12832 Valley View Street, Suite 107
Garden Grove, CA 92845
Telephone: (714) 379 6239
Facsimile: (714) 379 5444
E-mail: dgelaw@gmail.com
lauriecortez@emiliolaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Judith Droz Keyes, Esq.
Nicholas Anthony Murray, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111-6533
Telephone: (415) 276 6500
Facsimile: (415) 276 6599
E-mail: jkeyes@dwt.com
nicholasmurray@dwt.com
SAINT-GOBAIN: Hoosick Officials to Start Flushing Out Pipes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander C. Kaufman, writing for Huffington Post, reports that
Erin Brockovich, the consumer advocate and mother of three, whose
historic class-action suit against an energy company that poisoned
a California town's water became a Hollywood movie, hadn't stopped
fighting for clean water. And today -- amid ballooning public
water crises in Flint, Michigan; Jackson, Mississippi; and Hoosick
Falls, New York -- her warnings about water contamination seem
more urgent than ever.
"For years, we've seen this water crisis coming," Ms. Brockovich,
who was played by Julia Roberts in an eponymous 2000 biopic, told
The Huffington Post by phone on March 10. "It's like an
earthquake -- you prepare for it, but when it hits you're still
like, 'oh my gosh.'"
Now, Ms. Brockovich expects more places to join the list. She
said "millions of people in countless communities" could be
affected by contaminated water supplies across the country.
"It's cropping up everywhere now," she said. "It used to be,
historically, we'd see it in places that were more remote --
families looking to move away from cities, who were on well water
-- we're now seeing this pop up in municipalities, in rich or poor
or rural or in the city."
Lead contamination has emerged as the most popular water issue at
the moment, as images of taps in Flint spewing foul-colored fluids
appear on cable news channels almost daily. And new cases of lead
contamination are popping up all over the country. Water
authorities in Detroit, Philadelphia and the state of Rhode Island
have distorted lead tests by using methods deemed misleading by
the Environmental Protection Agency, according to an investigative
report published in January by The Guardian.
But neglectful government officials, who left pipes to corrode,
aren't the only ones to blame.
The case of Hoosick Falls, a quaint mill town 35 miles northeast
of Albany, hits close to home for Ms. Brockovich. There,
industrial giant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, whose two
plants in the town of roughly 3,500 serve as its chief employers,
allegedly poisoned the groundwater with perfluorooctanoic acid, or
PFOA. The chemical is an ingredient in olytetrafluoroethylene, a
white powdery substance better known by its brand name, Teflon.
PFOA is linked to thyroid disease, kidney cancer and testicular
cancer. A New York law firm filed a federal class-action lawsuit
on behalf of four plaintiffs from the affected area against Saint-
Gobain and Honeywell International, the chemical behemoth that
previously owned the plants.
On March 8 Hoosick Falls officials told residents at a packed
village board meeting that a temporary filtration system was up
and running and that they could soon begin flushing out pipes and
pools to replenish them with filtered water. But PFOA, pronounced
puh-FOH-uh by those that have to deal with it regularly, is
bioresistant, meaning it does not degrade easily in nature. So
it'll be in the ground, albeit filtered out of the water, for a
long time to come.
On March 13, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) paid a brief, surprise
visit to Hoosick Falls to announce that the municipal water supply
had been cleared of PFOA.
Still, the governor -- who was accused of ignoring the problem
until fury over Flint turned into a political quagmire for
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) -- said that hundreds of community
water supplies across New York may be contaminated with varying
degrees of toxins. But he refused to set a statewide standard for
acceptable levels of PFOA in water, despite a recent move by
Vermont to cap the chemical at 20 parts per trillion.
"Why don't you pick the lowest number possible?" Cuomo said,
arguing instead for a federal standard set by the EPA. "Because
then you could have hundreds of communities installing very
expensive filtration systems that don't need it."
The issue is already spreading. Neighboring communities in
Merrimack, New Hampshire, and North Bennington, Vermont, have
reported PFOA contamination in their water supplies, too.
Like Mr. Cuomo, Ms. Brockovich expects more cases. But unlike the
governor, who is serving his second term and reportedly has
presidential ambitions, she isn't concerned about overzealous
safety standards when it comes to water.
She said she has already put together a list, which she intends to
publish, of about 100 different towns where PFOA has contaminated
the water.
"Hoosick Falls is now going to be representative of countless
communities across the country," she said. "We think so many of
these issues in other places have other undertones, therefore we
think it isn't us. But I'm here to tell you, it is you. It is
Hoosick Falls."
To address the problem, Ms. Brockovich suggested what seems nearly
impossible amid the partisanship that rancors Washington. She
wants the country's water crisis to become a policy issue without
becoming political.
"Politicians should not play a game at all in our water supply,"
she said. "It's everyone's problem. And, boy howdy, if there were
one issue that everyone would be able to extend their hands across
the aisle and say 'we can fix this,' I'd venture to say, for
millions of people in countless communities, we absolutely agree
it's water."
That seems increasingly unlikely. On March 14, Rep. Jason
Chaffetz (R-Utah), chair of the House oversight committee, said
the EPA was guilty of "flat-out incompetence," and suggested the
already embattled agency be dismantled rather than reformed.
"This is your water and my water," Ms. Brockovich said. "This is
my grandchildren's water and my children's water. We can't adapt
to drinking polluted water."
SANTMYER OIL CO: Violated FLSA, "Wilson" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
George Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santmyer Oil Co., Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00309-JRA (E.D. Ohio, Eastern Div.,
February 10, 2016), seeks liquidated damages and all other
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), the statutes and common law of the State of Ohio, and the
Ohio Revised Code.
Santmyer Oil Company provides wholesale fuels, branded fuel
programs, lubricants, and card lock fuel management solutions. It
distributes gasoline and diesel fuel; and fuel products, and tank
maintenance and diesel additives for home, farm, and small
business. The company also provides fuel transportation services
in Ohio and surrounding states; and real-time card lock fuel
management solution for north and central Ohio businesses and
individuals. The Company is based in Wooster, Ohio.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Collum, Esq.
COLLUM LAW OFFICE
Crescent Pointe Building
4774 Munson Street NW, Suite 400
Canton, OH 44718-3634
Telephone: (330) 494 4877
Facsimile: (330) 433 1313
E-mail: jcollum@collumlawoffice.com
- and -
Cortney R. Oren Morgan, Esq
Crescent Pointe Building
4774 Munson Street NW, Suite 401
Canton, OH 44718-3634
Phone: (330) 966-5389
Fax: (330) 915-4803
E-mail: cortney@navigatelifeohio.com
SC HEALTHCARE: "Folk" Suit Moved S. Car. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
Megan Folk, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
SC Healthcare Investment, LLC, Mary T Valliant, CEO individually
and in her official capacity, and William Garry, CFO individually
and in his official capacity, Case No. 2016-CP-06-00034, was
removed from the Barnwell County Court, to the US District Court
for the District of South Carolina (Aiken). The District Court
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00643-JMC to the proceeding.
SC Healthcare Investments operates in the healthcare sector. The
company was incorporated in 2013 and is based in Barnwell, South
Carolina.
Megan Folk is a pro se plaintiff.
The Defendants are represented by:
D Michael Henthorne, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON (COLA)
1201 Main Street, Suite 1930
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 231 2414
Facsimile: (803) 753 9875
E-mail: mhenthorne@littler.com
SEASONS HOSPICE: "Lopez" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------
Zoila Lopez, and other similarly situated care consultants, v.
Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care of Southern Florida, Inc., and
Todd A. Stern, Individually, Case No. 2015 CA 001199, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to
the US District for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20739-JLK to the
proceeding.
Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care offers skilled nursing, assisted
living, rehabilitation and pain management services. Seasons
Hospice & Palliative Care of Southern Florida, Inc. was formerly
known as Douglas Gardens Hospice, Inc. As a result of the
acquisition of Douglas Gardens Hospice, Inc. by Seasons Hospice &
Palliative Care of Delaware, LLC, Douglas Gardens Hospice, Inc.'s
name was changed. The company was incorporated in 2001 and is
based in Miami, Florida. As of September 20, 2010, Seasons Hospice
& Palliative Care of Southern Florida, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care of Delaware, LLC.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
Courthouse Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416 5000
Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
jremer@rgpattorneys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul J DeBoe, Esq.
Michael Richard Tricarico, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK STEWART PC
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-0506
Facsimile: (305) 374 0456
E-mail: paul.deboe@ogletreedeakins.com
michael.tricarico@ogletreedeakins.com
SPOKANE COUNTY: Faces "Keyes" Class Action Suit in S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Keyes, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Richard Leland,
individually and in his official capacity, Sherri Hansen,
individually and in her official capacity, Christina Wentz,
individually and in her official capacity, Spokane County District
Court, and Spokane County, the Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-
PAS (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2016).
Spokane County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Washington. As of the 2010 census the population was 471,221,
making it the fourth-most populous county in Washington State. The
largest city and county seat is Spokane, the second largest city
in the state, behind Seattle. Spokane County was formed on January
29, 1858. It was annexed by Stevens County on January 19, 1864,
and re-created on October 30, 1879. It is named after the Spokane
tribe.
Jim Keyes is a pro se plaintiff.
STANFORD GROUP: 5th Cir. Clears Lawyers from Ponzi Scheme Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erik De La Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that immunity shields two New York law firms from a class action
in New Orleans over R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme,
the Fifth Circuit ruled.
A group of Latin American investors led by Samuel Troice first
took the lawyers to court nearly seven years ago in Dallas,
shortly after the eponymous leader of the Stanford Group was
indicted for selling phony certificates of deposit issued by its
Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.
With Stanford serving more than a century in prison for conspiracy
and fraud -- he turns 66 on March 24 -- investors blamed the Ponzi
scheme's lengthy, 15-year run on help from attorney Thomas
Sjoblom.
Sjoblom now operates a private practice based in Washington, D.C.,
but was a partner at Chadbourne & Parke from 2002 to 2006 and a
partner at Proskauer Rose from 2006 to 2009. Before that, he was
enforcement lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Stanford's defrauded investors said Sjoblom knew about Stanford's
scheme as early as August 2005 but turned a blind eye to it and
even helped stall the SEC's investigation by using legal tactics
to avoid releasing the company's books.
Though a federal judge advanced the lawsuit last year on remand
from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Texas Supreme Court threw the
case into a tailspin with an unrelated ruling last year.
Ruling on the case Cantey Hanger LLP v. Byrd, the Texas Supreme
Court held that "fraud is not an exception to attorney immunity"
under Texas law.
Taking this precedent into account for the attorneys' appeal, the
11th Circuit ruled this month that the investors' case must be
dismissed with prejudice.
"The Texas Supreme Court has now clarified that simply claiming
that an attorney's conduct was fraudulent does not allow
plaintiffs to circumvent attorney immunity," Judge Edith Brown
Clement wrote for a three-person panel.
Proskauer Rose applauded the reversal.
"The decision, which was based on arguments that Proskauer has
made since the outset of the litigation, brings this purported
class action to an end," the firm said in a statement relayed by a
spokeswoman. "We continue to be confident that the remaining
claims asserted against the Firm in related litigations, which are
equally baseless, will also ultimately be dismissed."
After reciting the various actions Sjoblom is accused of taking on
behalf of Stanford, the New Orleans-based appellate court said
"these are classic examples of an attorney's conduct in
representing his client."
"That some of it was allegedly wrongful, or that he allegedly
carried out some of his responsibilities in a fraudulent manner,
is no matter," the March 10 ruling continues.
Chadbourne & Parke has not returned a request for comment.
The case captioned, SAMUEL TROICE; PUNGA PUNGA FINANCIAL, LIMITED,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated; PAM REED, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. PROSKAUER ROSE,
L.L.P.; CHADBOURNE AND PARKE, LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP;
THOMAS V. SJOBLOM, Defendants - Appellants, No. 15-10500 (5th
Cir.).
STARBUCKS CORP: Underfills Venti Latte Cups by 25%, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No.
3:16-cv-01306-LB (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2016), alleges that
Starbucks represents on its menu that its Lattes contain "12 fl.
oz." for Tall, "16 fl. oz." for a Grande, and "20 fl. oz." for a
Venti. However, Starbucks Lattes are uniformly underfilled
pursuant to a standardized recipe; Tall Lattes are not 12 fluid
ounces, Grande Lattes are not 16 fluid ounces, and Venti Lattes
are not 20 fluid ounces. Starbucks cheats purchasers by providing
less fluid ounces in their Lattes than represented. In fact,
Starbucks Lattes are approximately 25% underfilled.
Starbucks Corporation is a Washington corporation and is a leading
American coffee company and coffeehouse chain; it operates 23,450
retail locations worldwide, including 12,937 locations in the U.S.
alone, which serve hot and cold drinks, whole-bean coffee,
espressos, teas, fresh juices, pastries, snacks, merchandise, and
Starbucks Lattes.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Julia A. Luster, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 A. North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jluster@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 989-9113
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: scott@bursor.com
- and -
Gerald Healy, Esq.
MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
219 Scott Street, PMB 315
Beaufort, SC 29902
Telephone: (844) 334-5459
Facsimile: (843) 645-6530
E-mail: gerry@militaryjusticeattorneys.com
- and -
John Hafemann, Esq.
MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
21 W. Park Avenue
Savannah, GA 31401
Telephone: (844) 334-5459
Facsimile: (843) 645-6530
E-mail: john@militaryjusticeattorneys.com
STELLAR RECOVERY: "Knapp-Ellis" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Knapp-Ellis v. Stellar Recovery,
Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01967, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02187 to the
proceeding.
Stellar Recovery provides financial services. The Company offers
receivable collection, claims adjustment, asset identification,
and debt management services. Stellar Recovery conducts its
business in the State of Montana. Stellar Recovery, is a Florida
corporation, based in Kalispell, Montana.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
Adrienne McEntee, Esq.
Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N. 34th St., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816 6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
mreiten@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Robert W. Mitchell, Esq.
ROBERT MITCHELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
1020 N Washington
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 327 2224
E-mail: bobmitchellaw@yahoo.com
- and -
Sara Ellen M Hutchison, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SARAELLEN HUTCHISON PLLC
1752 NW Market St. No. 915
Seattle, WA 98107
Telephone: (206) 529 5195
Facsimile: (877) 485 4893
E-mail: saraellen@saraellenhutchison.com
- and -
Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD, PLLC
1020 N. Washington
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (425) 239 7290
E-mail: tjarrard@att.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin N Hutnick, Esq.
BERMAN & RABIN PA
15280 Metcalf
Overland Park, KS 66223
Telephone: (913) 649 1555
E-mail: bhutnick@bermanrabin.com
- and -
Andrew David Shafer
SIMBURG KETTER SHEPPARD & PURDY, LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 2525
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 382 2600
Facsimile: (206) 223 3929
E-mail: ashafer@sksp.com
STEVE FOWLER: Faces Class Action Over Security Deposits
-------------------------------------------------------
Randy Billings, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that a
lawsuit filed in Portland accuses a city landlord of violating
state law by keeping the security deposits of tenants in two
buildings that he recently sold.
The tenants, including low-income and disabled residents, were
later given eviction notices by new owners to make way for
renovations, and dozens of others also may have been deprived of
security deposit refunds, the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit against Steve Fowler was filed as a class action on
March 14 in Cumberland County Superior Court. It seeks damages of
two times the security deposit amount, as well as attorney fees
and additional compensation for one specific tenant and "all
similarly situated Maine renters."
"This is an uncomplicated case of misappropriation, breach of
fiduciary duty, conversion and violations of Maine law concerning
the illegal retention of security deposits," the lawsuit states.
Mr. Fowler, whose properties are listed under different limited
liability companies, is accused of violating state law when he
sold several apartment buildings on Wilmot and Grant streets. At
the time of the sales, Fowler should either have transferred the
deposits to the new property owners and informed his tenants of
the transfer, or returned the deposits to tenants. The lawsuit
alleges neither occurred.
Reached by phone on March 15, Mr. Fowler said in a brief interview
that he was unaware of the lawsuit, but maintained that the
deposits were transferred. He said he would call back after
looking into the claims. He didn't call back on March 15.
The class-action lawsuit comes as the city is looking at ways to
address a housing crunch that is driving up rents and drawing the
attention of developers and investors interested in building
market-rate and luxury housing. In recent weeks, low-income
tenants at three properties were given at least 30 days to leave
so the property owner could renovate the buildings. Tenants who
don't get their security deposits back have an even more difficult
time finding a new home in a market where landlords are asking for
first and last month's rent and one-third of a month's rent as a
security deposit.
The no-cause evictions, which are legal with 30 days' notice when
a tenant does not have a lease, have put the spotlight on
potential policy changes to protect tenants, whether it's
increasing the notification period for no-cause evictions, forcing
landlords to help pay relocation costs of low-income residents, or
establishing a tenant-landlord advocate or panel at City Hall to
mediate minor disputes.
ONE SUIT FOR MULTIPLE TENANTS
Attorney Andy Schmidt said he decided to pursue a class-action
lawsuit so all current and former tenants at the two properties
could receive justice.
Some of the tenants in the 24-unit complex that Mr. Fowler sold on
Grant Street have yet to leave their apartments. The lawsuit says
that potentially dozens of current and former tenants could be
affected by the alleged violation. Because all would have similar
claims, a class-action lawsuit is the easiest and most efficient
way to proceed, the lawsuit says.
"Many landlords retain deposits as the default, whether or not
they have cause because they know only a small minority of tenants
have the time or resources to pursue legal action,"
Mr. Schmidt said. "They see the occasional payoff to a pesky
tenant lawsuit as a small cost of doing business. The brilliance
of class-action litigation is that one brave victim can stand up
and seek justice for all others, and in the process send a strong
message to all landlords in Maine that from now on the cost of
cheating your tenants will be devastating."
Mr. Schmidt said a notice of intent to sue was sent to Fowler's
business address on March 5.
The lawsuit lists Carl Davis, a formerly homeless veteran, as the
only named plaintiff. It says Mr. Davis, like other veterans,
"has struggled to maintain adequate housing." He worked with the
Veteran's Housing Services Program and the Portland Housing
Authority to go from being homeless to living at 52 Wilmot St. The
veterans program paid Fowler a $760 security deposit on
Mr. Davis' behalf and he would be entitled to receive it from the
landlord upon moving out.
Mr. Davis, who was not available to be interviewed on March 15,
moved to another Fowler-owned property at 61 Grant St. in July
2013, with the understanding that his security deposit would be
carried over, the lawsuit claims. Mr. Fowler sold the Grant
Street property to AEG Holdings last May, but Davis didn't receive
any notice that his deposit was transferred, nor was it returned
to Davis, the lawsuit states.
IF LAWSUIT SUCCEEDS, LANDLORDS NOTE
John Le, who purchased 61-69 Grant St., said in an interview that
Fowler never transferred the deposits to him. However, Mr. Le
said the apartments are in pretty bad shape, so it's unclear
whether residents would have been entitled to all or part of those
security deposits, especially if the damage exceeded normal wear
and tear.
Crandall Toothaker, who purchased the Wilmot Street properties
from Fowler, also said Fowler did not transfer the security
deposits during that sale. Two buildings had already been
condemned and cleared by the city, and Mr. Toothaker said he
voluntarily paid out the security deposits to remaining tenants in
a third building, as well as paying moving costs and forgiving
their last month's rent. Mr. Toothaker said the cost of moving
the remaining tenants from Wilmot Street was probably at least
$30,000.
"Steve (Fowler) said he was going to pay and he didn't, but that's
not the tenants' problem," Mr. Toothaker said. "I think it was
the right thing to do," he said of helping the remaining tenants.
"It's not right that the tenants did not get their money."
Mr. Toothaker is renovating the Wilmot Street apartment buildings
into market-rate housing, and Le is in the process of clearing the
Grant Street buildings for a possible renovation or rebuild.
Deirdre Smith, director of the Cumberland County Legal Aid Clinic,
which uses student attorneys to help low-income clients, said she
was not aware of the class-action lawsuit. But she said it's
common for tenants to complain about not getting their security
deposits returned.
"If the tenants are successful (in the lawsuit), I think other
landlords would likely take note," said Ms. Smith, who also is a
law professor at the University of Maine School of Law.
Brit Vitalius, president of the Southern Maine Landlords
Association, said it is rare that security deposits are not
properly transferred when a building is sold, although he said it
can happen when a property is foreclosed on. V Mr. italius hadn't
read the lawsuit, but he said state law rightly favors tenants
when it comes to security deposits.
"I think it's absolutely terrible if that's what (Fowler) did,"
Mr. Vitalius said. "Security deposits are not a landlord's money
-- it's the tenant's -- and the law is very clear about how we
have to put the money in separate accounts to protect them from
creditors."
Katie McGovern, an attorney at Pine Tree Legal, said the nonprofit
legal clinic for low-income people first heard about landlords not
keeping security deposits in escrow a few years ago, when two
large landlords declared bankruptcy. The clinic helped ensure that
the deposits were returned to the tenants as part of the court
proceedings, she said.
"The failure of a landlord when selling a building to transfer
security deposits to the new owner or return the security deposit
to the tenant has been a recurrent problem and we fully support
efforts to enforce a tenant's right to the return of their
security deposit," Ms. McGovern said.
SUSSAQUE'S LLC: "Small" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA & FMWA
------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Small, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Sussaque's LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Ocala Square Ssq, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and Philip Glassman, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00111-TJC-PRL (Cir. Ct. of the 5th Judicial Ct. in and for Marion
county, Florida Civil Division, February 29, 2016), seeks to
recover damages in excess of $15,000.00 exclusive of interest and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
Florida's State Minimum Wage Act (FMWA).
The Defendants own and operate restaurants and have at least
twelve locations throughout Florida and Louisiana. Defendants have
at least two employees and have an annual dollar volume of sales
or business done of at least $500,000.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
Jason M. Melton, Esq.
One Progress Plaza
200 Central Avenue, No. 400
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (727) 822 1111
Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
shelley@theFLlawfirm.com
TELUS COMMS: To Appeal Certification of Non-Arbitrable Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Paterson, Esq. -- mpaterson@osler.com -- and Catherine
Gleason-Mercier, Esq. -- cgleasonmercier@osler.com -- of Osler
Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in
the ongoing saga of Seidel v Telus Communications Inc., the BC
Supreme Court was asked to certify the few claims that survived
the enforceable mandatory arbitration clause, and it certified
those claims in 2016 BCSC 114. This decision reminds us that
carefully drafted arbitration clauses can carve out claims from
potential class proceedings unless such clauses are overridden by
express legislation.
The Proposed Class Action
As we have previously posted, the SCC decided that the binding
arbitration clause contained in the Telus contracts was
enforceable in respect of non-consumer claims. However, according
to the SCC, the applicable consumer protection legislation
overrode the arbitration clause for the specified claims falling
under that Act. Justice Masuhara's January 2016 certified the
surviving consumer claims as a class action.
The plaintiff alleged breaches of the BC Business Practices and
Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) based on historic billing
practices relating to incoming calls. As a result of these
practices, the plaintiff sought both a declaration that Telus
engaged in deceptive acts and practices and/or unconscionable acts
and practices pursuant to sections 5 and 9 of the BPCPA as well as
an order returning the monies acquired because of these
contraventions of the BPCPA pursuant to section 172 of the BPCPA.
The Certification Decision
The Court assessed each of the 5 criteria set out in the BC Class
Proceedings Act that must be satisfied in order to certify a class
action. In so doing, the Court noted that although the burden is
on the plaintiff, that burden is not an onerous one:
Reasonable Cause of Action
The Court found that it was not necessary for the class members to
establish a proprietary interest in the monies gained by the
defendant. Rather, given the low bar that it not be plain and
obvious that no reasonable cause exists, the Court found that as
long as the plaintiff could demonstrate an "interest" in the funds
obtained by the defendant it had a reasonable cause of action on
the basis of breach of contract for which recovery could be
granted under section 172 of the BPCPA.
The Court also rejected the defendant's argument that the Court
lacked the jurisdiction to certify these claims on the basis that
damages owed to plaintiff for breach of contract is an arbitrable
issue, severed from a class proceeding. Rather, the Court found
that the mandatory arbitration clause does not preclude the
plaintiff from relying on breach of contract to establish a right
to recovery under the BPCPA.
Identifiable Class of Two or More Persons
The proposed class was defined as:
All individual customers of the Defendant who were resident in
British Columbia and who contracted for cellular telephone
services through the Defendant from January 21, 1999 (excluding
the Defendants' employees and agents) to the date on which the
Defendant changed the language in its contracts.
The Court found that the proposed class, which appeared to be
broad, was sufficient to meet this requirement because the
definition allowed objective identification of a "consumer" as
required by the BPCPA and any individual inquiry required would
not make the definition unworkable. The Court further noted that
overbreadth is not necessarily fatal to certification, as the
class definition can always be revised.
Recently, the BC Supreme Court in Jiang v Peoples Trust Company,
2016 BCSC 368, found that a proposed class consisting of consumer
residents in BC who purchased, received or acquired one or more
Prepaid Cards issued or sold by any of the defendant was not
certifiable because unlike in Seidel it was not possible, on an
objective basis, to determine whether a proposed class member was
a "consumer" under the BPCPA. As such, a multitude of individual
inquires would be required.
Common Question of Law or Fact
The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the common issues
would require numerous individual inquiries such that the common
issues would be overwhelmed by individual inquires. Rather, the
Court found that establishing the defendant's billing practice
during the class period would be a straightforward factual
exercise and establishing deceptive representations would depend
only on the written consumer contracts. The Court did not certify
all of the proposed common issues, however, holding that there was
no basis in fact founding the allegations of spoliation.
Preferable Procedure
Given the common issues, the Court found that a class proceeding
would be preferable to any other proceeding, noting especially
that the small nature of the individual claims would make
individual litigation unlikely.
Appropriateness of the Representative Plaintiff
The Court found that Ms. Seidel was an appropriate representation
plaintiff even though she was not a "consumer" within the meaning
of the BPCPA for some or most of the class period. Indeed, the
Court noted that a representative plaintiff need not be the best
possible representative nor even be typical of the class and need
not have a claim under every cause of action certified. Rather,
the Court should consider whether the proposed representative
plaintiff has "sufficient common interest with class members" and
will vigorously and capably prosecute the interests of the class.
Notice of Appeal Filed
This decision seems to take a different approach than other cases
considering class definitions in the context of consumer
legislation. Unlike the other cases considering the same issues,
the Court in Seidel held that a proposed class definition that is
overly broad is not necessarily fatal to certification. In this
case, unlike Ileman v. Rogers Communications Inc., 2014 BCSC 1002
and Jiang, the individual inquiry into whether the class member
was a "consumer" did not make the definition unworkable.
Telus has filed a Notice of Appeal, which we hope will resolve the
different approaches seen in the cases on this point.
TGI FRIDAYS: "Williams" Suit Seeks Vacation Pay Under IWPCA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Williams and Tonya O'Donovan, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiffs, v. TGI Fridays, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-
02853 (Cook County Chancery Division, Ill., February 29, 2016),
seeks earned vacation pay and interest, declaratory, injunctive
and other equitable relief under the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act (IWPCA).
TGI Friday's owns and operates a chain of restaurants in the
United States and internationally. The company offers handcrafted
food and drinks, wines, appetizers, and others. It also provides
franchise opportunities. The company was founded in 1965 and is
based in Carrollton, Texas. TGI Friday's Inc. is a former
subsidiary of Carlson Companies, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419 1008
TURN INC: May Settle "Zombie Cookies" Suit Through Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that an online ad company accused of using "zombie cookies" to
collect data on smartphone users can settle a class action through
arbitration, a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. ruled March 14.
A class of Verizon subscribers from New York state sued Turn Inc.
in April 2015, claiming the company turned their smartphones into
"tracking beacons" to monitor online behavior.
Advertisers use bits of data called cookies to gather web
information that can be used for personal targeted-advertising
campaigns.
Lead plaintiff Anthony Hensen says Turn's "zombie cookies" evaded
detection and could not be deleted. When a person deleted Turn's
cookie, the company had a process to "respawn" the tracking data,
he claims in his lawsuit.
Turn said it would stop using the "zombie cookies" after a
ProPublica report in January 2015.
On March 14, U.S. District Judge Jeffery White found the claims
against Turn were "inextricably intertwined" with Verizon
subscriber agreements that include an arbitration clause.
The plaintiffs argued the judge should deny Turn's motion to
compel arbitration because Turn was not a party to that agreement.
But White found arbitration must be compelled when claims "arise
directly" from a provision of a contract that requires arbitration
to settle disputes.
Turn says the subscriber agreements disclosed Verizon's policy of
partnering with companies that provide tailored advertising
programs.
"Turn's defense requires an analysis of the contract between
Verizon and its subscribers," White stated in his 8-page ruling.
The judge granted Turn's motion to stay the class action pending
arbitration and ordered both parties to submit status reports on
the arbitration proceedings every 120 days.
U.S. SILICA: 75 Products Liability Claims Pending as of Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2015, there were a total of 75 active silica-
related products liability claims pending in which U.S. Silica
Holdings, Inc. was a defendant and 167 inactive claims, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.
"Since at least 1975, we and/or our predecessors have been named
as a defendant, usually among many defendants, in numerous
lawsuits brought by or on behalf of current or former employees of
our customers alleging damages caused by silica exposure," the
Company said.
"Prior to 2001, the number of silicosis lawsuits filed annually
against the commercial silica industry remained relatively stable
and was generally below 100, but between 2001 and 2004 the number
of silicosis lawsuits filed against the commercial silica industry
substantially increased. This increase led to greater scrutiny of
the nature of the claims filed, and in June 2005 the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas issued an opinion in the
former federal silica multi-district litigation remanding almost
all of the 10,000 cases then pending in the multi-district
litigation back to the state courts from which they originated for
further review and medical qualification, leading to a number of
silicosis case dismissals across the United States.
"In conjunction with this and other favorable court rulings
establishing "sophisticated user" and "no duty to warn" defenses
for silica producers, several states, including Texas, Ohio and
Florida, have passed medical criteria legislation that requires
proof of actual impairment before a lawsuit can be filed.
"As a result of the above developments, the filing rate of new
claims against us over the past few years has decreased to below
pre-2001 levels, and we were named as a defendant in three, one
and zero new silicosis cases filed in 2013, 2014 and 2015,
respectively.
"As of December 31, 2015, there were a total of 75 active silica-
related products liability claims pending in which we were a
defendant and 167 inactive claims. Almost all of the claims
pending against us arise out of the alleged use of our silica
products in foundries or as an abrasive blast media, and involve
various other defendants. Prior to the fourth quarter of 2012, we
had insurance policies for both our predecessors that cover
certain claims for alleged silica exposure for periods prior to
certain dates in 1985 and 1986 (with respect to various
insurance).
"As a result of a settlement with a former owner and its insurers
in the fourth quarter of 2012, some of these policies are no
longer available to us and we will not seek reimbursement for any
defense costs or claim payments from these policies. Other
insurance policies, however, continue to remain available to us
and will continue to make such payments on our behalf.
"The silica-related litigation brought against us to date has not
resulted in material liability to us. However, we continue to have
silica-related products liability claims filed against us,
including claims that allege silica exposure for periods for which
we do not have insurance coverage. Any such pending or future
claims or inadequacies of our insurance coverage could have a
material adverse effect on our business, reputation or results of
operations.
The Company is one of the largest domestic producers of commercial
silica.
UNITED STATES: CAS, et al. Faces Sai Class Action in Calif. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. government
departments captioned Sai, on Plaintiff's own behalf, and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. David
Smith, Jim Adams, Champagne Ellison, Covenant Aviation Security
(CAS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), United States of America,
Kimberly Walton, William McKenney, Seena Foster, Zachary Bromer,
Jeremy Buzzell, and Erika Lucas, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01024-JST (N.D. Cal. (San Francisco), February 29, 2016).
CAS provides airport security services under the Transportation
Security Administration's Screening Partnership Program (SPP). In
2002, CAS was awarded multiple contracts for providing commercial
screening services to the TSA under the privatization pilot
program initiated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.
CAS mobilized and hired 1,200 screening personnel at San Francisco
International Airport and the Tupelo Regional Airport within six
weeks of contract award.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sai
500 Westover Drive, No. 4514
Sanford, NC 27330
Telephone: (510) 394 4724
Facsimile: (206) 203 2817
PRO SE
UNUM GROUP: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the court has not yet ruled on
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement.
In May 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of California insureds who
were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.
"The plaintiff alleged we incorrectly administered the inflation
protection feature, resulting in an underpayment of benefits," the
Company said. "The complaint made allegations against us for
breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business and
Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief."
"We removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, and plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were
issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection
feature. After we answered the complaint, the court permitted the
plaintiff to file another amended complaint entitled Michael Don,
Executor of The Estate of Ruben Don, Leroy Little, by and through
his Guardian ad Litem Tamara Pelham, and Carolyn Little v. Unum
Group, and Unum Life Insurance Company of America containing
similar allegations.
"In April 2015, we again answered the complaint. The plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking certification of five subclasses, and we
filed our opposition. In February 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of settlement for a class of
certain insureds issued long-term care policies containing an
inflation protection feature as well as certain insureds who
requested copies of their long-term care policies. The court has
not yet ruled on this motion."
Unum Group is a provider of disability insurance products in the
United States and the United Kingdom.
VANYTRAVEL INC: "Cascante" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Cascante, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vanytravel, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Jerry Lang, individually, and Doris Bigio, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20694-JLK (S.D. Fla., February 25,
2016), seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Vanytravel, Inc. is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a
travel agency based in Aventura, Florida under the name House of
Travel, owned and operated by Jerry Lang and Doris Bigio. Cascante
worked as a travel agent and claims not to have received overtime
pay.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 299-3703
Fax: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
hsolis@workingforyou.com
VEREIT INC: Seeks Dismissal of 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., (f/k/a
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P.) said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the defendants
have filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action
complaint (or portions thereof) in the class action complaint
related to the Audit Committee Investigation.
On October 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-
K (the "October 29 8-K") reporting the Audit Committee's
conclusion, based on the preliminary findings of its
investigation, that certain previously issued consolidated
financial statements of the Company, including those included in
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2013 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
quarters ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, and related
financial information should no longer be relied upon. Prior to
that filing, the Audit Committee previewed for the SEC the
information contained in the filing. Subsequent to that filing,
the SEC provided notice that it had commenced a formal
investigation and issued subpoenas calling for the production of
various documents. In addition, the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York contacted counsel for
the Audit Committee and counsel for the Company with respect to
this matter, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts issued a subpoena calling for the production of
various documents. The Audit Committee and the Company are
cooperating with these regulators in their investigations.
The Company and certain of its former officers and current and
former directors have been named as defendants in a number of
lawsuits filed following the October 29 8-K, including class
actions, derivative actions, and individual actions under the
federal securities laws and state common and corporate laws in
both federal and state courts in New York, Maryland and Arizona.
Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and current and former directors,
among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in
ten putative securities class action complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "SDNY Actions"). The Court subsequently consolidated the SDNY
Actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY
Consolidated Securities Class Action").
Following motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, which were
granted in part and denied in part, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015, which
asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company filed
motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or
portions thereof) on February 12, 2016.
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., are a full-
service real estate operating company that operates through two
business segments, the real estate investment ("REI") segment and
the investment management segment, Cole Capital.
VEREIT INC: "Wunsch" Action Consolidated in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., (f/k/a
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P.) said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Wunsch"
class action lawsuit has been was consolidated with the
Consolidated Securities Class Action in New York.
On November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of its former
officers and current and former directors were named as defendants
in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Wunsch v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-14-
012816 (the "Wunsch Action"). On December 23, 2014, the Company
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland and on April 15, 2015, the Maryland court
transferred the Wunsch Action to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. On December 15, 2015, the
Wunsch Action was consolidated with the SDNY Consolidated
Securities Class Action.
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., are a full-
service real estate operating company that operates through two
business segments, the real estate investment ("REI") segment and
the investment management segment, Cole Capital.
VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Esposito" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., (f/k/a
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P.) said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is
not yet required to respond to the "Esposito" class action
complaint.
On October 28, 2015, the Company and certain of its former
officers and directors (among other individuals and entities) were
named as defendants in a putative securities class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: IRA FBO John Esposito v. American
Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-08508 (the
"Esposito Action"). The Esposito Action seeks money damages and
asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the
Company's securities. The Company is not yet required to respond
to the complaint in the Esposito Action.
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., are a full-
service real estate operating company that operates through two
business segments, the real estate investment ("REI") segment and
the investment management segment, Cole Capital.
VEREIT INC: ARCT III Merger Litigation Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., (f/k/a
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P.) said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs
have voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit related to the ARCT III
merger.
After the announcement of the merger agreement with American
Realty Capital Trust III, Inc. ("ARCT III") in December 2012 (the
"ARCT III Merger Agreement"), a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in January 2013 against the Company, the OP, ARCT III, ARCT
III's operating partnership, members of the board of directors of
ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the Company in Supreme Court
in the State of New York, captioned Qual v. American Realty
Capital Properties, et al., No. 650329/2013. The plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the ARCT III board breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated
under the ARCT III Merger Agreement.
In February 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders. The proposed
settlement terms required certain additional disclosures related
to the merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed by ARCT III with the SEC on February 21, 2013. On January
28, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without
prejudice.
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., are a full-
service real estate operating company that operates through two
business segments, the real estate investment ("REI") segment and
the investment management segment, Cole Capital.
VEREIT INC: Appeal in CapLease Merger Case Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., (f/k/a
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P.) said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in
the lawsuit related to the CapLease merger remains pending.
Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease
in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease
stockholders, the following of which remain pending:
On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the
Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of
directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et
al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors
because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and
fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of
a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly
contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was
purportedly approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleged that CapLease, the
Company, the OP and others aided and abetted the CapLease
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action filed a motion for a
stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the court that the
plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the prosecution of
other actions concerning the CapLease transaction then pending in
a New York court (which were subsequently dismissed). The stay was
granted by the Baltimore Court and the parties have engaged in no
subsequent activity in the Tarver Action.
In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP,
CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among
others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-
006178 (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleged that the
merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series
B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms
of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
("Series C") and was in violation of the Series B Articles
Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The
complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease
board of directors, and that the Company, the OP and Safari
Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and the CapLease
directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary
duty.
In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2015. The appeal is
pending.
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., are a full-
service real estate operating company that operates through two
business segments, the real estate investment ("REI") segment and
the investment management segment, Cole Capital.
VEREIT INC: Appeal in Cole Litigation Denied
---------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., (f/k/a
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P.) said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the
Cole litigation was denied on February 1, 2016.
Two actions filed in March and April 2013 in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, assert shareholder
class action claims under the Securities Act of 1933, along with
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate
waste, and unjust enrichment, among others, relating to the merger
between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings
Corporation, pursuant to which Cole became a self-managed REIT;
Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00712; and Carter
v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00629. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss both complaints in January 2014. Both of those
lawsuits have been stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request
made by all parties pending final approval of the Consolidated
Maryland Cole Merger Action.
To date, a number of lawsuits have been filed in connection with
the Cole Merger, the following of which remain pending. Between
October and November 2013, eight putative stockholder class action
or derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, which were consolidated in December
2013, under the caption Polage v. Cole Real Estate Investments,
Inc., et al., 24-c-13-006665 (the "Consolidated Maryland Cole
Merger Action").
These lawsuits named the Company, Cole and Cole's board of
directors as defendants, and certain of the actions also named
CREInvestments, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Cole, as a defendant. Each complaint
generally alleged, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to stockholders of Cole
in connection with the Cole Merger, and that certain entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The breach of
fiduciary duty claims asserted included claims that the Cole
Merger did not provide for full and fair value for the Cole
shareholders and was the product of an "inadequate sale process,"
that the Cole Merger Agreement contained coercive deal protection
measures and that the Cole Merger Agreement and the Cole Merger
were approved as a result of, or in a manner which facilitated,
improper self-dealing by certain defendants.
In January 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Maryland Cole
Merger Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class
of Cole stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required Cole
to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger
and contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation
of settlement, subject to customary conditions, including
confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to
Cole's stockholders. In August 2014, the parties in the
Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action executed a Stipulation
and Release and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the
"Stipulation") and the Baltimore Circuit Court entered an Order on
Preliminary Approval of Derivative and Class Action Settlement and
Class Action Certification and scheduled a final settlement
hearing.
In December 2014, the parties in the Consolidated Maryland Cole
Merger Action executed an Amended Stipulation and Release and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation")
modifying the Stipulation. In January 2015, the Baltimore Circuit
Court issued an order approving the class settlement pursuant to
the terms of the Amended Stipulation. Under the terms of the
approved settlement, defendants paid a settlement amount of $14.0
million, half of which was to be used for class counsel's
attorney's fees. One objector pursued an appeal of the settlement
order. That appeal was denied on February 1, 2016.
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., are a full-
service real estate operating company that operates through two
business segments, the real estate investment ("REI") segment and
the investment management segment, Cole Capital.
VEREIT INC: Settlement in Realistic Partners Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., (f/k/a
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P.) said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement
in the class action lawsuit by Realistic Partners remains pending.
In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners,
et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement and that
Cole aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the
parties entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class
of the Company's stockholders. The proposed settlement terms
required the Company to make certain additional disclosures
related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a Current
Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on January
17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that
the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which
would be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory
discovery and court approval following notice to the Company's
stockholders, and provided that the defendants would not object to
a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees.
If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding.
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P., are a full-
service real estate operating company that operates through two
business segments, the real estate investment ("REI") segment and
the investment management segment, Cole Capital.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Case Pending in Ohio Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend the Intellicorp Records, Inc. Litigation.
"On September 9, 2015, we were served with a nationwide putative
class action complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County in Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary
Intellicorp Records, Inc. ("Intellicorp.") titled Sherri Legrand
v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al.," the
Company said.
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio on October 8, 2015. Plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on November 5,
2015 ("Amended Complaint"), which like the prior complaint claims
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and alleges two
putative class claims against Intellicorp, namely (i) a section
1681k(a) claim on behalf of all individuals who were the
subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp which
contained public record information in the "Government
Sanctions" section of the report on or after September 4, 2013 and
continuing through the date the class list is prepared and (ii) a
section 1681e(b) claim on behalf of all individuals who were the
subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp which
contained public record information in the "Government
Sanctions" section of the report where the address or social
security number of the subject of the report do not match the
social security number or address contained in the government
database on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the
date the class list is prepared.
Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Cato
violated the FCRA by procuring consumer reports on the plaintiff
and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure
required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III
allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by
failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy
of the adverse information included in its consumer reports and
FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to
assure that the public record information reported which was
likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and
up to date, respectively.
The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants acted willfully and
seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount not less than
one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per
violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and
attorney's fees.
Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources, healthcare, financial services,
government, and risk management.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Sued in North Carolina Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company was served
on February 1, 2016, with a nationwide putative class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina naming the Company's subsidiary
Intellicorp Records, Inc.
The complaint titled Frank DiSalvo v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.
claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and alleges a
section 1681b(b)(1) claim on behalf of all individuals residing
in the United States who were the subjects of consumer reports
furnished by Intellicorp for employment purposes within the
period prescribed by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p without
first obtaining from the user of the report a certification that
such user had complied with the obligations under Section
1681b(b)(2) as to the subject of the consumer report. The class
complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section
1681b(b)(1) by failing to obtain the required specific
certification from its customers to whom Intellicorp furnished
consumer reports as to each consumer report provided before
providing the specific consumer report that was the subject of the
certification. The complaint alleges that the violations were
willful or in the alternative negligent and seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.
At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.
Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources, healthcare, financial services,
government, and risk management.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Still Faces "Weber" Case in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend the case, John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk
Analytics, Inc.
"On April 20, 2015, we were served with a putative class action
titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc.,"
the Company said. "The plaintiff, a former employee of the
Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed
the class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all review
appraisers and individuals holding comparable positions with
different titles who were employed by Interthinx for the last
three years nationwide and who were not paid overtime wages."
"The class complaint claims that the review appraiser employees
were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were
denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if
they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads a
Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act for unpaid overtime and seeks overtime wages, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
"On March 11, 2014, we sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this
matter."
Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources, healthcare, financial services,
government, and risk management.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation have filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's order that granted defendants'
motions to dismiss.
"On August 1, 2014, we were served with an Amended Complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action is
brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and
on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120 defendants,
including us and our subsidiary, Insurance Services Office, Inc.
("ISO")," the Company said.
"Except for us, ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which
provides standard forms to assist in insurance transactions, most
of the other defendants are property and casualty insurance
companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property
damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that we and ISO, along with all of
the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and
racketeering laws as well as state common law.
"On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct
errors as the Third Amended Complaint.
"The Third Amended Complaint similarly alleges that the defendants
conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not
specifically allege what role we or ISO played in the alleged
conspiracy. It claims that we and ISO, along with all of the other
defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering
laws as well as state common law, and seeks all available relief
including, injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as
well as attorneys' fees.
"On January 15, 2016, the court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint and
plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 16,
2016. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter."
Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources, healthcare, financial services,
government, and risk management.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Served with "Halloran" Action in Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company was served
on February 19, 2016, with a notice of a summons and complaint
filed on January 29, 2016 against its subsidiary Insurance
Services Office, Inc. ("ISO") in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut titled Halloran et al. v. Harleysville
Preferred Insurance Co. et al.
The Company said, "The putative class action is brought on behalf
of four policyholders and similarly situated policyholders in
Eastern Connecticut who complain that their homeowner's insurance
carriers denied their claims for the deterioration and collapse of
their foundations caused by defective concrete. The lawsuit
alleges a breach of contract claim against insurers Harleysville,
Nationwide and Kemper and an anticipatory breach of contract claim
against insurer MetLife. It also alleges that ISO as the drafter
of the standardized policy language at issue participated with
over 100 insurance companies to deny claims for defective concrete
and collapsed foundations and violated the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices (CUTPA) and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance
Practices Act (CUIPA). The plaintiffs ask that the Court certify a
class of persons similarly situated and seek recovery from over
100 insurance carriers equal to the cost for the replacement of
their concrete foundations, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs and interest."
Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources, healthcare, financial services,
government, and risk management.
VIDA JETS LLC: "Baldino" Suit Seeks Damages & Cost Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Baldino and Michael Blair, and the other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vida Jets, LLC and Carmilo Beltran, the
the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80288-RLR (S.D. Fla., February
29, 2016), seeks to recover reasonable attorney's fee and costs,
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, additional equal
amount as liquidated damages as a result of Defendants' violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Vida Jets was founded in 2012. The company's line of business
includes providing professional engineering services. The Company
is based in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Isaacs, Esq.
GARY A ISAACS, P.A.
712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400
North Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 844 3600
E-mail: gaisaacs@bellsouth.net
WELLS FARGO: "Torio" Suit Seeks Damages Over Foreclosure
--------------------------------------------------------
Helen Torio and Victoriano Torio, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA et al., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00704-HRL(N.D. Cal., February 11, 2016), seeks to recover damages
as a result of real property Foreclosure.
Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, National Association provides
commercial banking services such as deposits accounts and loans.
The Bank is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Donald Matthews, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN MATTHEWS
1321 40th Street, #223
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 283 6320
E-mail: arbitrator@yahoo.com
YAHOO! INC: Accord in Non-Users' Privacy Suit Has Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Jose, Calif. has granted preliminary
approval of a settlement that would prohibit Yahoo from
intercepting non-users' emails in transit to access information
for "targeted" advertising.
Yahoo can still access emails once they reach their destination
points.
Under the agreement, Yahoo would make technical changes to the way
it handles incoming and outgoing email content.
"Yahoo has agreed to make these significant structural changes to
its system architecture for the processing of all incoming and
outgoing email, not just emails sent to and from the California
class members," according to a 21-page motion for preliminary
approval.
Under the language of the settlement, however, it does not appear
that Yahoo has any intention of discontinuing its practice of
analyzing people's emails and using information to send them
advertisements, regardless of whether they are Yahoo users or not.
The change is about when the information can be accessed. Under
law it can only be accessed once it has reached its destination,
not in transit.
"As a result of these changes, Yahoo will only access incoming
email content for advertising purposes after it has been delivered
to Yahoo Mail subscribers' inboxes, and will only access outgoing
email for advertising purposes after it has been placed in Yahoo
Mail subscribers' sent email folders."
Yahoo would also change language on its website to inform users
that it "analyzes and stores all communications content, including
email content from incoming and outgoing mail" and that "Yahoo may
share keywords, package tracking and product identification
numbers with third parties in order to enhance your user
experience and provide targeted ads."
Four people who do not use Yahoo but sent emails to people who do
brought a class action lawsuit against the Internet portal in
October 2013, alleging violation of state and federal wiretap and
privacy laws.
Yahoo moved to dismiss the claim in March 2014 and U.S. District
Judge Lucy Koh whittled the plaintiffs' claims down to one
violation of the federal Stored Communications Act and one claim
under the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
She certified a nationwide class on the federal claim and a
subclass consisting of California residents under the California
law in May.
Yahoo filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit for permission to
appeal the certification, but the court refused to intervene.
The two sides made a motion for settlement in January 2016.
Judge Koh granted preliminary approval on March 15.
"The court grants preliminary approval of the settlement and all
of the terms and conditions contained therein," she said in an 8-
page order. "The settlement agreement appears to be the result of
serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted at arms
length by the parties. The terms do not improperly grant
preferential treatment to any individual or segment of the class,
and fall within the range of possible approval."
The settlement agreement calls for $4 million in attorneys' fees.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Laurence King of Kaplan Fox &
Kilscheimer in San Francisco and Daniel Girard of Girard Gibbs in
San Francisco, did not immediately return phone calls for comment.
A final approval hearing is set for Aug. 15, 2016.
The court noted that the settlement agreement does not release any
claims for monetary damages against Yahoo and the class members
may still seek monetary damages against Yahoo even if the
settlement is approved.
The case captioned, IN RE: YAHOO MAIL LITIGATION, Consolidated
Case No.: 5:13-cv-04980-LHK (N.D. Cal.).
* Activists Call for Regulation of Cancer-Causing PFOA Amid Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Esch, writing for Associated Press, reports that prized for
its ability to make things super-slick, it was used for decades in
the manufacture of Teflon pans, Gore-Tex jackets, ski wax, carpets
and the linings of pizza boxes and microwave popcorn bags.
Now, with the suspected cancer-causing chemical PFOA being phased
out in the U.S., it is still very much around, turning up in the
water in factory towns across the country -- most recently in
upstate New York and Vermont -- where it is blamed by residents
for cancers and other maladies.
The latest cases have brought renewed demands that the
Environmental Protection Agency regulate PFOA the way it does
arsenic, lead and dozens of other contaminants, and set stringent,
enforceable limits on how much of the substance can be in drinking
water.
"Where is the government that is supposed to protect people and
the environment? It's an outrage," said Tracy Carluccio of the
Delaware Riverkeeper Network, which uncovered PFOA, or
perfluorooctanoic acid, in tap water in New Jersey a decade ago.
In their defense, EPA officials said that the agency has been
considering for years whether regulations are needed for PFOA and
related perfluorinated chemicals, but that it is a drawn-out
testing and evaluation process dictated by the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act. In the meantime, the EPA has taken action
around the country to fine companies and force them to clean up
such chemicals.
For now, there are no mandatory limits on how much PFOA, also
called C8, can be in drinking water. The same goes for its cousin
perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, which is used in firefighting
foam. The Pentagon is checking for traces of PFOS in the water at
664 U.S. military sites where fire or crash training has been
conducted.
As part of its review of such chemicals, the EPA ordered
nationwide testing of water supplies in 2013.
Of 4,764 water supplies, 103 systems in 29 states had trace
amounts of PFOA, but none exceeded 400 parts per trillion, EPA's
advisory level for short-term exposure -- water you drink for only
a few weeks. Seven had levels slightly over 100 ppt, the new
advisory level for long-term exposure -- for the water you drink
for years -- that the EPA is expected to set this spring.
But the EPA's national survey didn't tell the whole story.
Towns the size of Hoosick Falls, New York, whose water supply
serves just 4,500 people, weren't included in the testing. Its
PFOA level of 600 ppt was discovered in village wells in 2014 only
because residents, concerned about what they perceived as a high
cancer rate in the plastics factory town, demanded testing.
In January, after the lead crisis in Flint, Michigan, focused
national attention on water contamination, EPA and New York
officials warned people in Hoosick Falls not to drink the water.
The state is promising a new water supply with a price tag of $10
million.
More recently, testing turned up PFOA at about 100 ppt in drinking
water in nearby Petersburgh, New York, and North Bennington,
Vermont, which also had plastics plants. On
March 15, Vermont officials said a second round of water testing
in North Bennington yielded readings of up to 2,730 ppt.
Michael Hickey, a local insurance underwriter, exposed the
contamination in Hoosick Falls, a bucolic community near the
Vermont state line known as the hometown of folk artist Grandma
Moses.
"My father died of kidney cancer. My grandmother had kidney
cancer," Mr. Hickey said. "My concern isn't really about me; it's
about my 5-year-old son."
At the least, health and environmental advocates say, communities
that have factories and other installations that used the chemical
should test their water.
"I would consider it an urgent priority to decrease exposures,"
said Philippe Grandjean, a researcher at the Harvard School of
Public Health who believes the 100 ppt safe-exposure level EPA is
proposing is still 100 times too high.
Vermont health officials, for example, have set that state's PFOA
level at 20 ppt, based on the same research the EPA is relying on.
Class-action lawsuits have been filed as far back as 2001 against
companies such as 3M and DuPont over PFOA contamination of water
near factories or disposal sites in a host of communities,
including Decatur, Alabama, and Cottage Grove, Minnesota.
In settling a lawsuit involving 70,000 people in West Virginia and
Ohio, DuPont agreed in 2004 to install filters to remove PFOA from
water systems in six communities surrounding its Parkersburg, West
Virginia plant. In October, DuPont was found liable for a woman's
kidney cancer in the first of 3,500 lawsuits filed by people with
diseases they blame on the contamination.
The American Water Works Association, a water industry group,
believes that nationwide regulation of PFOA isn't needed but that
testing for the substance at manufacturing sites would be prudent,
spokesman Greg Kail said.
Advanced filtration systems to remove PFOA can cost millions of
dollars up front, plus tens of thousands a year in operating
costs.
3M invented the chemical 1947, and it became so ubiquitous that
more than 98 percent of Americans have traces in their blood,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 3M
began to phase it out in 2002 in response to health concerns
raised by the EPA. DuPont and eight other companies later agreed
to do the same by 2015.
Studies funded by the DuPont settlement concluded PFOA is a
"probable cause" of six illnesses, including thyroid disease and
kidney and testicular cancer. Those studies were based on people
who drank water with PFOA at a level of 50 ppt for a year -- half
what the EPA is expected to set as the safe level. Other studies
have linked PFOA to low birthweight and other problems in
children.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo warned that PFOA and other chemicals
will probably be discovered in the water across the state and
country.
"We allowed waste disposal in fashions that, in retrospect, were
not prudent," he said, "and now, in many ways, we are paying the
price as a society."
* Class Rep Must be Diligent when Defendants File for Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Schotz PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that
plaintiffs in a lawsuit bear a substantial burden when seeking to
be certified as a class under federal law. Where the defendant
commences a bankruptcy proceeding, and the plaintiffs seek to file
a proof of claim on behalf of all class members, that burden
becomes even greater and is rife with obstacles unique to the
bankruptcy process.
To file a class proof of claim, the proponent must make a motion
to extend the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and establish
the four threshhold requirements in that rule for certifying a
class: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to
the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interest of the class.
Generally, Rule 23 applies in bankruptcy cases; however,
"bankruptcy significantly changes the balance of factors to be
considered in determining whether to allow a class action and thus
class certification is often less desirable in bankruptcy than in
ordinary civil litigation." In re Bally Total Fitness of Greater
New York, Inc., 402 B.R. 616, 620-1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009). Thus,
in addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 23, the class
representatives must also demonstrate that, "the benefits derived
from the use of the class claim device are consistent with the
goals of bankruptcy." In re Musicland Holding Corp., 362 B.R. 644,
651 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Against this backdrop, courts have considered, among other
factors, the timing of a motion for a class claim and its impact
on the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Specifically,
where a class waits until far into the Chapter 11 plan process to
seek to file a class claim, courts have consistently denied
motions for such relief as being disruptive to the bankruptcy
case. See e.g. In re Ephedra Prods. Liability Lit., 329 B.R. 1, 5
(S.D.N.Y. 2005) (court denied class certification request made
after plan was sent to creditors for voting); In re FIRSTPLUS
Fin., Inc., 248 B.R. 60, 73 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2000) (motion for
class certification denied where it was filed one month prior to
plan confirmation hearing).
Similarly, where the claims bar date in a bankruptcy case has
expired, a motion to file a class proof of claim may be denied.
See In re Sacred Heart Hospital of Norristown, 177 B.R. 16, 23
(Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1995) (court denied motion to file class proof of
claim and extension of bar date, reasoning that, "[i]t is clearly
disruptive to the formulation of a plan to frustrate a debtor's
logical assumptions regarding the amounts of total claims by
compelling the debtor to alter or extend an established bar
date.").
Class representatives, as a rule, must always be vigilant in
serving the interests of their constituents in a class action
lawsuit. Where the defendant commences a bankruptcy proceeding,
that vigilance also requires a general familiarity with the
bankruptcy process and the careful monitoring of the defendant's
bankruptcy case, including the claims bar date and the status of
the plan confirmation process. As the foregoing case law
demonstrates, class representatives ignore these critical events
at their own peril.
*********
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 * * *