/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160324.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 60 Headlines 7-ELEVEN: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Schithantrajah" Suit Claims 730 RESTAURANT INC: Violated NY Labor Law, "Sime" Suit Claims A & E DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Marinated Salmon Products ADVANCED MICRO: Securities Fraud Class Action Can Proceed ADVOCATE HEALTH: Judge Set to Approve OT Class Action Settlement AFFYMETRIX INC: "Douglas" Suit Seeks to Block Merger Deal ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Appeal in Deaborn Police Suit Ongoing ANN'S STUDIO: Janitor Faces Class Action Over Hidden Camera ANS INVESTMENTS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Corporate Asset APEX MERCHANT: Judge Sets Aside Remand Bid, Wants More Evidence ASTRAL DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Phosphate Buffer Solutions AUTOCAR: Recalls 2012 Vehicle Model Due to Crash Risk BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in "Pointer" Suit Has Preliminary OK BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Securitized Accounts BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: "Carroll" Suit Removed to D. South Carolina BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Seeks Dismissal of Gun Range Class Action BRITAX CHILD: Recalls B-Safe Travel Systems Due to Injury Risk BRITAX CHILD: Recalls Strollers and Replacement Top Seats BTS NORTH: "Plasencia" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wages BUMBLE BEE: Recalls Canned Chunk Light Tuna Due to Contamination CALIFORNIA: "Thomasberger" Sues Over DMV Personal Data Access CARDIAC SCIENCE: Recalls Defibrillation Pads CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Pending CHICAGO, IL: To Vigorously Defend Red Light Camera Suit CHINESE DAILY: Settles Labor Class Action for $7.8 Million COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Dover Midstream Specimen Catch Kit DENSO CORP: Class Action Certification Make Take a Year DIRECT GENERAL: MSPA Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida DIRECT GENERAL: Faces Branch's Suit in Fla. Over Automated Calls DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Unpaid Wages DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: "Davis Neurology" Sues Over Unsolicited Fax DODGE: Recalls Charger 2011 Model Due to Injury Risk DUKE ENERGY: Settlement in Progress Energy Merger Has Final Order DUKE ENERGY: DETM Reached Settlement of Price Reporting Cases DUKE ENERGY: Faces "Newton" Class Action in Florida DUKE ENERGY: April Hearing on Settlement Objections in Ohio Case FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Private Message Harvesting FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages FEDERAL NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Burke" Suit Claims FLINT, MI: Congress Calls for Resignation of Governor Snyder FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Philips" Suit FORD MOTOR: Recalls Ranger 2014 Model Due to Defective Airbag FRANKLIN FUELING: Recalls Gas Station Hose/Swivel Fitting Sets GAMWYN-WILZIN: Faces "Hafter" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Breach GE LIGHTING: Recalls High-Intensity Led Lamps GEICO INDEMNITY: Judge Denies Insurer's Bid for Summary Judgment GENERAL HOME: Faces "Arkin" Class Suit in M.D. Florida GOOGLE INC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Collection of Faceprints H-E-B: Recalls Light Tuna in Oil Due to Contamination H&R BLOCK: Judge Affirms Trial Court's Denial of Arbitration Bid HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Seeks Back Wages and Damages HEARTLAND INDUSTRIAL: State Court Suit v. Class Counsel Dismissed HERBALIFE LTD: 3rd Amended Complaint in Securities Case Tossed HONDA: Recalls Accord 2008 Model Due to Injury Risk HONEST CO: Alba Says "Natural" Class Action Claims Without Merit HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Sodium Bicarbonate Injections HSBC HOLDINGS: WM/Reuters Rates Suit Pending in Canada HSBC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Gold Price-Fixing Suit Up for Hearing HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Silver Price-Fixing Suit Pending HSBC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Platinum Price-Fixing Action Sought HSBC HOLDINGS: Gold Price-Fixing Suit Filed in Ontario HSBC HOLDINGS: April 2016 Final Hearing on CDS Case Settlement IC: Recalls CE and RE School Bus 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Gothem Floor and Table Lamps INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC: Recalls Hammered Enamel Finish Products I PLAY: Recalls Glass Food Storage Cubes Due to Injury Risk JCPENNY CORP: Judge Grants 2nd Class Cert. Bid in "Garcia" Suit JP SPORTS COLLECTIBLES: "Davis" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay KIMBERLY CLARK: Judge Narrows Claims in Flushable Wipes Suit KING OF DIAMONDS: "Curtis" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation KRAFT HEINZ: Sued Over Misleading Cheese Product Advertising LUNERA LIGHTING: Recalls LED Lamps Due to Electric Shock Hazard MANASSEH JORDAN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Clarke" Suit Claims MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Fried Fish Balls Due to Egg MASTERCARD: Two Florida Stores File Class Action Amid EMV Delay MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Bars Late-Filed Seafood Claim METLIFE INC: Westland Police Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. METLIFE INC: Birmingham Retirement Suit Remains Pending in Ala. METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Owens" Class Action in Ga. METLIFE INC: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Robainas" Case Pending METLIFE INC: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Intoccia" Case Pending METLIFE INC: Objectors Appeal Settlement Order in "Fauley" METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Voshall" Suit in Calif. METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Martin" Case in Calif. METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Lau" Suit in S.D.N.Y. MFA INCORPORATED: Recalls Rabbit Feed Due to Illness Risk MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: Cops' Suit Over Bargaining Deal Remanded NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Proposes Class Action Settlement NATIONAL AUTO: Judge Denied Defendants' Bid to Dismiss TCPA Case NATIONAL FOODS: Recalls White Puffs Marshmallow Products NEW FLYER: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk NEWMAR: Recalls Motorhome 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance NOW HEALTH: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Mislabeling PAN ASIA: Recalls Seafood Pancake Products Due to Egg PANASONIC CORPORATION: Recalls Lithium-ion Computer Battery Packs PHARMASYSTEMS INC: Recalls Digital Basal Thermometers PIPER JAFFRAY: To Pay $9.8 Million to Settle MDL Action POLISH TRADE: Recalls Paprykarz Szczecinski Products POOL CORP: Portions of Expert Opinion Excluded in Antitrust Suit PUBLIC STORAGE: "Perez" Sues over Insurance Overcharging RACERMATE INC: Recalls CompuTrainer Blue Flywheels SABRE INC: Opinion Shouldn't Be Classified as "Unpublished" SEKISUI DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Acetaminophen L3K SKYY PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Repair Habitability Defects SORIN GROUP: Recalls Dual Stage Venous Return Cannula SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOLAR: Faces "Buckman" Suit in California SPOKEO INC: Article III Standing at Issue in Class Action SPOTIFY: Law Firm Points Out Cons of Settlement in FAQ Sheet SRAM LLC: Recalls Zipp(R) Bicycle Quick Releases SRAM LLC: Recalls Zipp 88 Aluminum Front Hubs Due to Crash Risk STARBUCKS COFFEE: Faces Class Action Over Cup Filling Issue STONE & WOOD DESIGN: "Carrasquel" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay STUDENT TRANSPORTATION: School Bus Drivers File Wage Class Action TACO BELL: Bid to Modify Method to Calculate Damages Denied TERRAFORM POWER: Four Law firms Mull Securities Class Actions TERU SUSHI: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Chung" Suit Claims TEXAS: Residents Meet to Discuss Potential Class Action v. SRA TRAIL LINES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Hayman" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Chunk Light Tuna TRIPLE E: Recalls Regency GT 2014 Model Due to Scalding Hazard TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Hold Trial This Summer TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Wants Class Action Trial to Proceed TRUMPF MEDIZIN: Recalls iLED and TruLight Lighting Systems TSC DIRECT: Recalls AquaRug Products Due to Fall Hazard UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for Jan. 2017 in "Morgate" Action UNITED PARCEL: Apppeal in AFMS Case Pending UNITED PARCEL: Ontario Class Action Remains Pending UNITED PARCEL: New York Case Settlement Granted Final Approval UNITED STATES: Gun Rights Class Action Against Two AGs Amended VIVINT INC: "Noori" Sues Over Illegal Dismissal VMWARE INC: Facing "Ford" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court VOLKSWAGEN: Meeting Sought to Tackle EU Emissions Customer Claims VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Q5 and Tiguan 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk WASHINGTON: WSP Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation YOUR MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cenkus" Suit Claims * Price Comparison Class Actions Likely to Pile Up in New York * Scottish Gov't Plans to Introduce Class Action Procedure * Tobacco Industry May Face More Punitive Damages After Ruling ********* 7-ELEVEN: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Schithantrajah" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Maslamani Schithantrajah, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sital Shah d/b/a 7-Eleven, and any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 607260/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Nassau, S.D. Fla., November 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, and other wages, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR). Sital Shah is the sole proprietor of 7-Eleven Farmingdale, which he owns and operates under the laws of New York, with a location at 725 Fulton Street, Farmingdale, New York 11735. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 730 RESTAURANT INC: Violated NY Labor Law, "Sime" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Sime, and all others similarly situated, The Plaintiff, v. 730 Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Woodcleft Crab Shack, Andrew Drosinos and Joseph Drosinos, the Defendants, Case No. 608411/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Nassau, December 30, 2015), seeks to recover required minimum wage, all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and additional hour pay, at the basic minimum wage rate for each day, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Defendants were allegedly enriched by retaining benefits, property, and monetary value that belonged to the Plaintiff by paying Plaintiff in cash and retaining payments which should have been contributed toward social security and Medicare, disability insurance premiums, workers' compensation premiums and unemployment contributions. Woodcleft Crab Shack is a place of business that is owned, controlled, operated, and maintained by Andrew Drosinos and Joseph Drosinos located at 150 Woodcleft Avenue, Freeport, New York 11520. It is a small family-owned and operated restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil M. Frank Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, PC 500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756 0400 Facsimile: (631) 756 0547 E-mail: Nfrank@laborlaws.com A & E DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Marinated Salmon Products ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: A & E Distribution Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10361 A&E Distribution Inc. is recalling Fjord Laks brand Gravlax marinated salmon from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold in Quebec. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product ----- ---------- --- Fjord Gravlax - 165 g All Best Before Variable Laks Marinated dates up to and Salmon (Dill including February sauce included) 14, 2016. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/H14MLZ ADVANCED MICRO: Securities Fraud Class Action Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that a lawsuit accusing U.S. chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices of securities fraud for concealing problems with the 2011 launch of a new microprocessor can proceed as a class action, a California federal judge has ruled. In a decision on March 16, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected AMD's argument that a class should not be certified because alleged misstatements by the company did not affect its share price. ADVOCATE HEALTH: Judge Set to Approve OT Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal magistrate judge indicated on March 17 she would sign off on a $4.75 million settlement in a class action filed by a group of nurses and physical therapists who claim Advocate Health Care Network and its subsidiaries misclassified them as exempt from overtime pay. U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan said she approved of the amounts paid to lawyers and plaintiffs in the settlement, which puts to bed a hybrid collective and class action against the Illinois health care giant claiming violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the state minimum wage law. Judge Finnegan requested some minor adjustments to the language in the agreement before approval. "With the changes we discussed, I will expect to approve [the settlement], once I see the forms that are going to be mailed out," Judge Finnegan said. The health care workers claim Advocate's payment scheme, which combines both per-visit fees and hourly wages, doesn't meet FLSA requirements to exempt them from receiving overtime. The caregivers routinely worked longer than 40 hours per week and sometimes worked up to 60 hours, according to the preliminary agreement. The settlement does not require Advocate to admit any wrongdoing. The suit, originally filed by Advocate nurse Judith Lukas in 2014, includes 36 health care workers who opted in to the collective action under the FLSA. Its class action, filed under state minimum wage laws and certified in 2015, includes any Advocate home health clinician who was paid in the scheme between April 2011 and the date of judgment. Each of the class members, which could be up to 333, will receive an average of $9,700, according to the agreement. The amount will be calculated based on the number of estimated overtime hours they worked. Ms. Lukas and the 36 members of the collective action will receive a 50 percent bonus in addition to their calculated payout, though Lukas will not receive more than $15,000, according to the agreement. Attorneys' fees and expenses for plaintiff's counsel, Stephan Zouras LLP, will be $1.43 million, the agreement said. The settlement, which took four months to negotiate, provides for a generous payout for the class and collective members considering the expected difficulties should the case have proceeded to trial, class counsel wrote in the agreement. "Bona fide disputes exist as to whether named plaintiff and the class members could credibly establish the hours of overtime they worked and the weeks in which they worked overtime," they said. The issue of whether combined fee and hourly-wage pay schemes meets FLSA requirements for overtime would have been new for the district, the attorneys said. The final settlement approval is expected at the end of June. The health care workers are represented by James B. Zouras, Ryan F. Stephan and Teresa M. Becvar of Stephan Zouras LLP. Advocate is represented by Michael J. Gray -- mjgray@jonesday.com -- and Efrat Schulman -- eschulman@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day. The case is Judith Lukas et al v. Advocate Health Care Network and subsidiaries, et al, case number 1:14-cv-2740 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. AFFYMETRIX INC: "Douglas" Suit Seeks to Block Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank Witney, Nelson Chan, Gary Guthart, Jami Nachtsheim, Riccardo Pigliucci, Merilee Raines, Robert Trice, and Affymetrix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00921 (N.D. Cal., February 24, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment, and rescinding of merger, reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses and such other and further equitable relief for violation of Section 14(a), 20(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the Securities and Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duties. According to the complaint, Affymetrix and Thermo Fisher entered into a Merger Agreement which the Board approved without a bidding process that could secure a more lucrative deal. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Affymetrix. Affymetrix is into DNA chip technology, analyzing complex genetic information that is used for research into the relationship between genes and diseases. Frank Witney, Nelson Chan, Gary Guthart, Jami Nachtsheim, Riccardo Pigliucci, Merilee Raines and Robert Trice serve in the Board. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (424) 256-2884 Fax: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Appeal in Deaborn Police Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action plaintiff's appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending. The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action")." "On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012, which rendered our financial statements and projections of future earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees. "On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint. "On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss without leave to amend. "On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any. The case is, CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS ACT 345 POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-06039-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Counsel to the Plaintiff: Darren Jay Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com - and - Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Christopher Martin Wood, Esq. David Conrad Walton, Esq. Sunny September Sarkis, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 288-4545 Fax: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Caz Hashemi, Esq. Douglas John Clark, Esq. Nicholas R. Miller, Esq. Kelley Moohr Kinney, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: 650-849-3075 Fax: 650-493-6811 Email: chashemi@wsgr.com dclark@wsgr.com nmiller@wsgr.com kkinney@wsgr.com Align Technology, Inc designs, manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy, intra-oral scanners and CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) digital services used in dentistry, orthodontics, and dental records storage. ANN'S STUDIO: Janitor Faces Class Action Over Hidden Camera ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Lawson, writing for WHNT, reports that the former Huntsville janitor who planted hidden cameras at Ann's Studio of Dance, WHNT News 19's office and other area businesses is being sued by the family of a dance student. The lawsuit alleging negligence was filed on March 16 in Madison County Circuit Court against Jeremy Joseph and Mr. Nelson's former employer, James Starkey, owner of Sanitary Systems. Mr. Starkey spoke briefly to WHNT News 19 and said he hasn't seen the complaint. The lawsuit also seeks to establish a class action claim involving all minors who were students at Ann's Studio of Dance while Mr. Nelson was a custodian at the school. Mr. Nelson was arrested in 2014. He pleaded guilty and in June 2015 was sentenced to 140 years in federal prison on child pornography charges. The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff, identified as Mary Doe, was a minor student at Ann's School of Dance in August 2011. The studio had a contract with Starkey's company to provide cleaning services. "In his position as a custodian at the Studio, Mr. Nelson had unsupervised access to the dressing rooms and restrooms," the lawsuit claims. "Utilizing his unfettered and unsupervised access to the minor Plaintiffs changing areas, Mr. Nelson installed a video surveillance system in restrooms and dressing rooms he was paid to clean. "The system he installed filmed and photographed Mary Doe and other similarly-situated minor Plaintiffs without their knowledge." The lawsuit argues Mary Doe was a student at the dance studio for nearly two years and Mr. Nelson recorded and distributed pictures of her. The lawsuit says Nelson's actions were "facilitated" by Starkey's failure to properly hire, train and supervise his employees. The company and Mr. Nelson are covered by an insurance policy for the acts alleged, but the lawsuit argues the insurance funds won't be enough to cover all the individual claims that could arise. It seeks to establish the class action so any potential plaintiffs could receive a share of the settlement. Attorney Eric Artrip estimates the number of dance students affected ranges between 20 and 50 girls. Mr. Nelson still faces state charges of production of child pornography. His trial is currently for June. The lawsuit also alleges Starkey was negligent in retaining Nelson as an employee and it further claims invasion of privacy. ANS INVESTMENTS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Corporate Asset ----------------------------------------------------------------- Madison Consulting Services, LLC and Mastiff Group, LLC, derivatively on behalf of Priority Aviation, Inc. v. Peter Minikes, Jonah Meer, ANS Investments, LLC, Arnon Epstein, GZ Services, Guy Zahavi, and Priority Aviation, Inc., asserts looting, waste and the usurpation and diversion of corporate assets and corporate opportunity by the defendants of nominal defendant Priority Aviation, Inc. and its minority shareholders Madison Consulting Services, LLC and Mastiff Group, LLC. ANS Investments, LLC operates an investment company and maintains a principal place of business at 50 Battery Place, Suite 7F, New York, NY 10280. Priority Aviation, Inc. operates an aviation repair facility located at 7 Rose Avenue, Great Neck, New York, 10021. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. McKew, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK MCKEW, PLLC 1725 York Ave., Suite 29A New York, NY 10128 Telephone: (212) 876-6783 APEX MERCHANT: Judge Sets Aside Remand Bid, Wants More Evidence --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case RUBEN AMAYA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. APEX MERCHANT GROUP, LLC, dba EXPRESS PROCESSING, an unknown entity; FIRST AMERICAN PAYMENT SYSTEMS, an unknown entity; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CIV. No. 2:16-00050 WBS CKD (E.D. Cal.), District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California asked the parties to submit more specific evidence. Plaintiff Ruben Amaya initiated a class action against defendants Apex Merchant Group, LLC (Apex) and First American Payment Systems (First American). Plaintiff was employed by defendants for approximately one month in July 2015 and alleges that he and the other sales consultants were misclassified as exempt employees. Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action under California law: (1) failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Labor Code Sections 510, 1198; (2) failure to provide meal periods and pay the meal period premium Sections 226.7, 512(a); (3) failure to provide rest periods and pay the rest period premium Section 226.6; (4) failure to pay minimum wage Sections 1994, 1197, 1197.1; (5) failure to pay owed wages at the time of discharge Sections 201, 202; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements Section 226(a); (7) failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs Section 2800, 2802; (8) Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) violations warranting a civil penalty, Sections 2698 et seq.; (9) unlawful business acts and professions, Cal. Bus. & Professions Code Sections 17200-17210. The complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages. The complaint merely states that the amount in controversy for the named plaintiff, including but not limited to claims for compensatory damages, restitution, penalties, wages, premium pay, and pro rata share of attorney's fees, is less than $75,000. Further, the complaint does not allege the frequency of the alleged violations, stating only that violations occurred at all material times set forth. Defendant First American removed the action from Sacramento County Superior Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Plaintiff moves to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447, contending that defendant has not established that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Judge Shubb ordered the parties to submit more specific evidence regarding the amount in controversy within 30 days from the date of the order. The court will rule on plaintiff's motion to remand after reviewing any submitted evidence. A copy of Judge Shubb's memorandum and order dated March 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/XhW8jRfrom Leagle.com. Ruben Amaya, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh -- statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- at Justice Law Corporation First American Payment Systems, Defendant, represented by Michelle L. DuCharme -- ducharmem@gtlaw.com -- James M. Nelson -- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig, LLP ASTRAL DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Phosphate Buffer Solutions ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: January 21, 2016 Posting date: February 8, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57030 The label for ColorWright Phosphate Buffer Solutions distributed in Canada lacks the manufacturer's name and address as required in Canadian Medical Devices Regulations (sor/98-282), subsection: Labelling Requirements 21 (1). Affected products: A. COLORWRIGHT PHOSPHATE BUFFER SOLUTION, PH 6.8 3.78L Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: ACC-SP5548 Manufacturer: ASTRAL DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORATED 1224 FOREST PARKWAY, SUITE 200 WEST DEPTFORD 08066 New Jersey UNITED STATES B. COLORWRIGHT PHOSPHATE BUFFER SOLUTION, PH 7.2 Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: ACC-SPP5573 Manufacturer: ASTRAL DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORATED 1224 FOREST PARKWAY, SUITE 200 WEST DEPTFORD 08066 New Jersey UNITED STATES AUTOCAR: Recalls 2012 Vehicle Model Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: January 22, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016030TC ID number: 2016030 Manufacturer recall number: ACX-1601 On certain vehicles equipped with dual drive right-hand-stand-up cab configurations, the locking cotter pin securing the brake pedal to it is mounting bracket may not have been properly installed during assembly. As a result, the brake pedal could loosen and detach from the mounting bracket, making it difficult to apply the brakes which would increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and repair affected vehicles. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- AUTOCAR 2012 BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in "Pointer" Suit Has Preliminary OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class settlement and for provisional certification of the class in the case IVAN DEXTER POINTER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, BANK OF AMERICA N.A., BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOC., et al., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-00525-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Ivan Pointer worked for Bank of America National Association (BANA) as a non-exempt Home Service Specialist. Pointer claims that BANA had a policy to exclude bonuses when calculating overtime pay, so he and similarly situated Home Service Specialists were wrongly underpaid. He also seeks penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), California Labor Code Sections 2698 et seq. Pointer filed the original complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court in late 2013, but was removed to the present court in February 2014. The court set a schedule for a hearing on a motion for class certification, but the parties first reached preliminary settlement after private mediation in March 2015. Pointer moves for preliminary approval of a class settlement and for provisional certification of the class. The motion is unopposed. BANA has agreed to pay a total of $1,750,000 to the class. Judge Mueller granted plaintiff's motion and appoints Righetti Glogoski, P.C. as class counsel. Ivan Dexter Pointer is appointed class representative. Rust Consulting is approved as claims administrator. The proposed settlement is preliminarily approved on a class basis. Within seven days of the date the order, plaintiffs' counsel shall file a proposed order setting a final hearing schedule, which upon approval will become part of the order. A copy of Judge Mueller's order dated February 22, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Inm8WDfrom Leagle.com. Ivan Dexter Pointer, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- John James Glugoski -- Michael C. Righetti -- mike@righettilaw.com -- at Righetti Glugoski, PC Bank of America N.A., Defendant, represented by Michael David Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- Regina A Musolino -- rmusolino@mcguirewoods.com -- Joanne Elizabeth MacMillan -- jmacmillan@mcguirewoods.com -- Matthew C. Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuire Woods LLP BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Securitized Accounts ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that a putative class action suit was filed on March 16 against Bank of America (B of A) alleging that that the bank has been improperly suing consumers who owe on credit card debt after the bank had previously "sold" that debt via a securitization of a pool of accounts and thereby relinquishing its ownership interest in the account. The case, Willard v. Bank of America, et al., (Case No. 2:16-cv-01199) was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Allegations The case was brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1692-1692p (FDCPA); and the statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA), 73 P.S. Secs. 2270.1-227. The complaint requests actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, statutory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other appropriate relief from defendants. The summary allegations are that B of A has "engaged in a scheme whereby they issue credit cards to consumers and, then seek to collect the amounts allegedly due from each card holder's use of the credit card, despite the fact that B of A has sold, transferred, assigned or otherwise conveyed its beneficial interest in each consumer's credit card account to a trust as part of a financial transaction known as a credit card securitization. Having relinquished its beneficial interest, B of A no longer has a debt obligation owed to it by Plaintiff or the Class." The complaint alleges very specific elements of the B of A "sale" process from account creation through securitization; a process that shows an account moving via "sale" from Bank of America to Bank of America Consumer Credit Services to Bank of America Funding LLC to Wilmington Trust Company. The complaint then alleges, "Wilmington Trust Company then underwrites a bond offering. The bonds are placed into tranches from senior debt to junior debt and each tranche has a certain amount of assets. Bank of America Consumer Credit Services still services the account by sending out bills and accepts payment, but Bank of America has given up ownership rights as required to Wilmington Trust Company, therefore Bank of America and its entities have given up its rights to sue its cardholders when they default on their debt." Finally, the complaint alleges, "Despite the fact that Bank of America intentionally relinquished its beneficial interest in Bank of America accounts, it has continued to pursue, along with its affiliates and the defendant law firms, collection lawsuits against Plaintiffs and members of the Class to recover the obligations allegedly owed on the Bank of America accounts." Plaintiff's attorneys are seeking class certification. insideARM Perspective This case demands continued scrutiny by all banks and the ARM industry. The securitization of pools of accounts is a wide- spread process. The case has the potential to dramatically impact future collection practices regarding securitized accounts. While this particular case involves litigation on accounts that were securitized, any "sale" of those accounts could be subject to the same argument. In fact, earlier this year, on January 26th, insideARM published an article about another class action case that involved similar allegations involving securitized accounts. However, in that case, (Cox, et al v. Sherman Capital LLC, et al. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1:12-cv-01654-TWP-MJD) a federal judge in Indianapolis ruled that a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the United States Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") against Sherman Financial Group, one of the country's largest debt buyers, could not proceed as a class action because circumstances vary too much among the class members. Because of the high stakes involved, the Sherman case was vigorously pursued by Plaintiff's attorney and subject to often contentious interplay among the attorneys involved. It is likely that this new case will have similar activity. BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: "Carroll" Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Candice Carroll, Thomas Mims, Dimitar Stoilov, Stephen Gaskins, Christopher Brasseaux, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. H Wayne DeWitt, and Berkeley County, Case No. 2016-cp-08-00255, was removed from the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00792-PMD to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Berkeley County is a county in the U.S. state of South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 321 Wingo Way, Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (800) 385-8160 Facsimile: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net The Defendant is represented by: Christopher W. Johnson, Esq. Thomas Foster Haselden, Esq. GIGNILLIAT SAVITZ AND BETTIS 900 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 100 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 799-9311 Facsimile: (803) 254-6951 E-mail: cjohnson@gsblaw.net fhaselden@gsblaw.net BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Seeks Dismissal of Gun Range Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- R. Norman Moody, writing for Florida Today, reports that an attorney for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office argued for the dismissal of a suit asking for the relocation of a training gun range that neighbors say is a noise nuisance. Keith Kromash, an attorney representing the sheriff's office, in part argued for dismissal, saying that the sheriff's office was not in violation of an ordinance dealing with noise. He said the Rev. Johnnie Dennis, who is representing himself, did not state a cause of action in seeking an injunction against the gun range, and failed to establish the class-action status he sought. In a hearing on March 15, Circuit Judge George Maxwell ordered both sides to file legal briefs regarding whether the sheriff's office should be immune to the petition against the range. The other points of contention are dismissed Rev. Dennis, an evangelist and civil rights advocate, said the community has endured the noise for too long, and at night have difficulties even being able to watch television without the interruption of the gun blasts. He said the neighborhood of 600 residents was established in 1964, and the range started about 20 years later. Documents show that the sheriff's office recently signed a new 10- year lease with Brevard County, which owns the range property, also used as a farm located in east of Interstate 95, off Pluckemaun Road. "People are paranoid," Rev. Dennis said. "They are afraid to come out at night for fear of bullets ricocheting. In my case, I have been severely injured. I have hearing loss." Other residents said they tried to compromise with the sheriff's office, but got no results. Shooting continues well into the night. Documents say "the range is available for training" from 7:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from noon to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. Sheriff's Cmdr. Jimmy Donn said in February that while operations can go on until 10 p.m., it usually wraps up much earlier. "They shoot until 1 or 2 o'clock," resident Robert Bray said. Eastern Florida State College and police departments around the county also use the range. "When they are out there, you can hear the 'boom, boom,'" nearby resident Willie Swinton said. The briefs on statutory immunity issues must be presented to the judge by April 5. He said he could call for another hearing if he does not make a decision on the issue within 10 days of receiving the legal briefs. BRITAX CHILD: Recalls B-Safe Travel Systems Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 21, 2016 Posting date: January 21, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56686 This recall involves the carry handle on certain B-Safe 35 and B- Safe 35/B-Agile Travel Systems manufactured between October 1, 2014 and July 1, 2015. The product can be used as a rear-facing only car seat or as an infant carrier. It comes with a black shell and base and a solid colored canopy. The Britax logo is printed on both sides of the seat shell and on the carry handle grip. Model numbers are printed on a date of manufacturer (DOM) label located at the back of the infant car seat shell. In Canada, the infant car seats with the following model numbers are included in the recall: Britax Infant Car Seats Model Number Dates of Manufacture and Travel Systems ------------ (YYYY/MM/DD) ----------------------- -------------------- B-Safe 35 E9LV13F, October 1, 2014 E9LV15M, (2014/10/01) E9LV15P through July 1, 2015 (2015/07/01) B-Safe 35/B-Agile S914300, Travel System S914500, S914700 The infant car seat carry handle can develop cracks and break allowing the seat to fall unexpectedly, posing a risk of injury to the infant. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Britax has received 74 reports (one in Canada) of the handle developing fractures, cracks, or breaking while in use. These incidents have resulted in one injury report in the United States where the unit dropped to the ground and the infant received a bump to their head. Approximately 3,900 seats were sold in Canada and about 71,000 were distributed in the United States. The recalled seats were sold from November 1, 2014 to January 1, 2016 at various children's stores and online. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: Britax Child Safety, Inc. Fort Mill South Carolina UNITED STATES Importer: Britax Child Safety, Ltd Saint John New Brunswick CANADA Consumers should not lift or carry the car seat by the handle until the repair is installed. All consumers who have registered their product with Britax will automatically receive a free repair kit. To verify registration or to receive a repair kit, consumers can visit Britax recall page. Consumers can continue to safely use the car seat when secured in a vehicle or on a stroller. For more information, consumers may contact Britax by telephone at 1-800-683-2045 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. ET on Friday, by email or online at the Britax website and click on Safety Notice at the top right, or the Britax recall page. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Consumers may view the release by Mexico's Consumer Protection Federal Agency (PROFECO) on the Agency's website (Spanish only). Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ATmx0T BRITAX CHILD: Recalls Strollers and Replacement Top Seats --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 21, 2016 Posting date: January 21, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56654 This recall involves the foam-padded arm bar on select B-Ready Strollers and replacement B-Ready Top Seats manufactured between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012. The model numbers included in this recall are identified in the table below. Product Type Product Description Model Number ------------ ------------------- ------------ B-READY Stroller B-READY Black U281772 B-READY Green U281773 B-READY Red U281771 B-READY Silver U281774 B-READY Twilight U281768 B-READY Pink U281784 B-READY Blue U281767 B-READY 2012 Silver U281794 B-READY 2012 Red U281792 B-READY 2012 Navy U281796 B-READY 2012 Black U281793 B-READY 2012 Black/ U281795 Twilight U281795 U281797 B-READY Top Seat B-READY Top Seat S845700 Accessory B-READY Top Seat S845800 B-READY Top Seat S845600 B-READY Top Seat S845900 B-READY Top Seat S855100 B-READY Top Seat S855000 B-READY Top Seat S856600 B-READY 2012 Top S870200 Seat B-READY 2012 Top S870600 Seat B-READY 2012 Top S870300 Seat NOTE: If your Britax product has a different model number than the model numbers listed above or it was made after December 31, 2012 it is NOT included in this recall. There should be a label with the stroller model number and date of manufacture on the stroller's frame between the front wheels or on the inside frame that connects to the back right wheel of the stroller or on the right side tube above the adjuster button, under the fabric cover of the top seat. A child may bite and ingest a piece of the foam on the arm bar, posing a choking hazard. Health Canada has received one report of a child biting off a piece of foam on the arm bar. No injury was reported. Britax has received nine reports in Canada and 117 reports in the United States of children biting the foam arm bar. There have been no reports of injuries in Canada and five injuries in the United States. Approximately 11,320 B-Ready Strollers and/or Top Seats were sold through various retailers in Canada and approximately 49,000 were distributed in the United States. The recalled strollers and top seats were sold between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012 in Canada and the United States. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Britax Child Safety Inc. Fort Mill South Carolina UNITED STATES Importer: Britax Child Safety Ltd. Saint John New Brunswick CANADA Consumers should immediately remove and discontinue use of the foam-padded arm bar and contact Britax for one free black, zippered fabric arm bar cover and a warning label to apply to their strollers or replacement top seat. Consumers can continue to use their B-Ready strollers without the arm bar attached. Consumers can visit the Britax recall website to request a kit containing a zippered fabric arm bar cover and warning label. For more information, consumers can also contact the Britax Customer Service Department by telephone at 1-800-683-2045 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. ET on Friday, by email or online at the Britax website and click on Safety Notice at the top right, or the Britax recall website for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/8zTdoq BTS NORTH: "Plasencia" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Danay Rego Plasencia, Yazmin Chavez and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BTS North, Inc. and Philip Gori, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 38207588 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade County, February 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. BTS North, Inc. is an adult club in Miami Dade operating as Booby Trap owned by Phillip Gori. Plaintiffs work as dancers and accuse the Defendants of not paying minimum wages and failing to pay overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody M. Shulman, Esq. Jason Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416~5005 Email: jremer@rgpatterneys.com BUMBLE BEE: Recalls Canned Chunk Light Tuna Due to Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bumble Bee Foods, LLC announced that it is voluntarily recalling 3 specific UPC codes of canned Chunk Light tuna due to process deviations that occurred in a co-pack facility not owned or operated by Bumble Bee. These deviations were part of the commercial sterilization process and could result in contamination by spoilage organisms or pathogens, which could lead to life- threatening illness if consumed. It is important to note that there have been no reports of illness associated with these products to date. No other production codes or products are affected by this recall. There are a total of 31,579 cases that are included in the recall which were produced in February 2016 and distributed nationally. The products subject to this recall are marked with a can code that starts with a "T" (example: TOA2BSCAFB) and have the following "best by" dates: Label UPC Product "Best By" Dates" --------- ------- ---------------- 8660000020 5oz Bumble Bee Chunk 02/10/2019, 02/16/2019, Light Tuna in Water 02/17/2019, 02/18/2019, 02/22/2019, 02/23/2019, 02/25/2019 8660000021 5oz Bumble Bee Chunk 02/23/2019 Light Tuna in Oil 8660000736 4 Pack of 5oz Bumble 02/9/2019, 02/10/2019, Bee Chunk Light Tuna 02/22/2019, 02/29/2019 in Water The recall is being initiated out of an abundance of caution due to the possible under-processing of the affected products discovered by the co-packer during its routine quality audit. Bumble Bee is working closely with the co-packer and the FDA to expedite the removal of products from commerce. Consumers are advised to throw away the recalled product. Consumers looking for more information on reimbursement or whom have questions about the recall may contact Bumble Bee at (888) 820-1947 between the hours of 9am and 6pm EST seven days a week or visit www.bumblebee.com/recall-march-2016disclaimer icon. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/xPoCk1 CALIFORNIA: "Thomasberger" Sues Over DMV Personal Data Access ------------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, Roberta Roe, Jerome Coe, Paul Poe, Richard Loe, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Steve Thomasberger, Plaintiffs, v. Jean Shiomoto, Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. RG16805013 (Cal. Super., Alameda County, February 24, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees and costs for violations of the California Constitutional Right of Privacy, California Civil Codes, right to due process, California Vehicle Code and California Labor Codes. Plaintiff alleges that the DMV maintain personal records of apprehensions long after the prescription period has expired; making them accessible to private background checks from, but not limited to, employers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Crowley. Esq. EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER 3130 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 Tel: (510) 269-6693 Fax: (510) 548-2566 Email: scrowley@ebclc.org - and - Peter Sheehan, Esq. THE SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW PROJECT 449 15111 Street, Suite 301 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 891-9794 Ext. 628 Fax: (510) 891-9727 Email: socialjusticelaw@hotmail.com CARDIAC SCIENCE: Recalls Defibrillation Pads -------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 27, 2016 Posting date: February 22, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57202 Cardiac Science has determined that the affected lot may exhibit higher than expected electrical impedance over time. If electrode impedance becomes too high, the G3 AED will fail the electrode self-test performed by the AED and it will not be rescue ready. Affected products: DEFIBRILLATION PADS Lot or serial number: 141125-02 Model or catalog number: 9131 Manufacturer: Cardiac Science Corporation N7W22025 JOHNSON DRIVE WAUKESHA 53186 Wisconsin UNITED STATES CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- ChannelAdvisor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the motion to dismiss the case, In re ChannelAdvisor Securities Litigation, remains pending. On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Dice v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al., alleging violations of the federal securities laws against us and certain of the Company's executive officers. Plaintiff Dice alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company's common stock by making false and misleading statements to investors concerning the Company's financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a purported class action complaint in the S.D.N.Y., Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al., in which Plaintiff Gracia brings the same claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action brought by Plaintiff Dice. On May 5, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. consolidated the Dice and Gracia actions, captioned the actions as In re ChannelAdvisor Securities Litigation, and appointed Plaintiff Dice as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On July 2, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On September 28, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the case and the outcome of the motion is pending. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ChannelAdvisor Corporation is a provider of SaaS solutions that enable its retailer and branded manufacturer customers to integrate, manage and optimize their merchandise sales across hundreds of online channels. CHICAGO, IL: To Vigorously Defend Red Light Camera Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Clayton Guse, writing for Time Out, reports that in February, a ruling out of the Cook County Circuit Court denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit surrounding Chicago's controversial red light and speed camera programs. The suit claims that the city violated its own municipal code by failing to give violators appropriate notice before issuing late fees and other penalties. It's the first suit in Chicago that has challenged the camera tickets that hasn't been dismissed in court, and now the plaintiffs' attorney is moving forward in a big way. Jacie Zolna -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- of Myron M. Cherry & Associates, who is representing three initial plaintiffs in the case, is now looking to get the case certified as a class action lawsuit. Mr. Zolna said that his firm has already applied for class certification, and that he's hoping for the request to be approved within the next few months. After that, it's a matter of discovering exactly how many people have been pinged with unwarranted fines and tickets since Chicago's camera programs first launched in 2003. "The practices at issue won't affect every single [red light and speed camera] ticket issued by the city," said Mr. Zolna. "I know it's going to be tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people . . . it's going to be extremely large and it's going to impact a big portion of all the tickets that were issued." If you think that you were unjustly ticketed by a red light or speed camera, you don't really have to do anything. During litigation, the law firm will get information from the city about the identities of the people that are affected, and those people will get a notice telling them about the lawsuit, what their rights are and their options from there, Mr. Zolna said. But if you've paid off a stack of questionable red light and speed camera tickets, don't bank on getting them refunded in full. The amount that plaintiffs in the class action case will receive depends on how the case gets resolved. The city could settle, or the case could go to judgment. If the latter happens, Zolna says the case could be too big to even collect on. "We have a lot of ideas on how to resolve this thing without bringing financial Armageddon to the city," he said. The city, however, isn't going to roll over on the case. " The city continues to defend this case vigorously, as we believe that the plaintiffs' claims are legally insufficient," said Law Department spokesperson Bill McCaffrey. "The plaintiffs do not dispute that they violated the law and that they received notices of these violations. It is the city's position that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any recovery, let alone any refunds." So, don't hold your breath while you wait for your red light or speed camera ticket to be refunded. This case could drag on for a while, but rest assured that a team of lawyers is hard at work on the behalf of Chicago's motorists. CHINESE DAILY: Settles Labor Class Action for $7.8 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that one of the country's biggest Chinese-language newspapers has agreed to pay $7.8 million to past and current employees to settle a long- running class-action lawsuit involving allegations of multiple labor violations. The suit against Chinese Daily News, known in the Chinese community as World Journal, stretches back to 2004, when three employees sued over alleged abuses, including failure to pay overtime and not giving meal and rest breaks. The paper is basedin Monterey Park. The three workers -- including a reporter and sales agent -- said they were often forced to work 12-hour shifts six days a week without the required rest break. They were not paid overtime, nor were they allowed to report the actual number of hours they worked. The suit was certified as a class action, eventually ballooning to more than 200 newspaper workers, including reporters, salespeople and other hourly employees from the Monterey Park and San Francisco offices. In 2008, a U.S. district judge in Los Angeles ordered the paper to pay those workers more than $3.5 million in damages and penalties in addition to more than $1.5 million interest. That followed a 2007 jury verdict in favor of the workers. But the case got locked in appeals courts for years, said Randy Renick, a plaintiff's lawyer. "Chinese Daily News was going to fight this until the end of time," he said. "They appealed and appealed again." Finally, after 12 years of litigation, Chinese Daily News decided to settle "to avoid protracted litigation," said Yi-Chin Ho, an attorney for the paper. Chinese Daily News wanted to "focus on its core business of producing the most widely circulated Chinese-language paper in the U.S.," she said. "It believes all wage and hour policies are fully compliant with California and federal law." One of the original plaintiffs, Lynne Wang, said the settlement was a small measure of justice after what she described as years of labor and wage abuses. Wang said managers and editors have long had friction with the paper's rank-and-file staff. In 2001, employees had voted to unionize. After the vote, "they added to the workload," she said. "After you are done for the week, you had to come to the office at 10 or 11:00 p.m. to have a late-night meeting until midnight." Ms. Wang worked at the newspaper for 18 years as a reporter; she said she was terminated for refusing to switch to a position as a translator. She now works as a freelance writer and radio broadcaster. As part of the settlement, about $100,000 will be donated to fund clinics to help Asian American workers at UCLA, Loyola Law School and USC Gould School of Law, Renick said. Ms. Wang said she wants other Asian immigrant workers to have access to aid in the same way that she and her former co-workers did when they pursued their own lawsuit. "It's really difficult for Chinese immigrant workers to sue a company," she said. "So we want to help them." COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- Mickey J. Lee, Esq. -- mlee@mauricewutscher.com -- of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed a district court's dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit, holding that while the district court was correct that the first- to-file rule applied because of a previous class action involving substantially the same parties and claims, it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the present case given the jurisdictional and procedural hurdles the plaintiffs would face if forced to become part of the earlier class action filed in another federal judicial district. A copy of the opinion is available at: http://is.gd/LF74HD In March 2014, a group of landowners in Medina, Ohio sued a natural gas company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that the defendant stored natural gas under their property without compensation in violation of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 717f. The defendant received a "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permitting it to store natural gas in the "Medina Field," "a naturally-occurring system of porous underground rock" into which defendant pumped natural gas during the low-demand summer months and extracted it in the winter, when demand is high. In exchange for the permit, the Natural Gas Act required the defendant to compensate any landowner whose land forms part of the Medina Field. The Act also required the defendant to file an eminent domain proceeding in the federal district court where the property is located if it could not reach agreement with the landowners. The defendant offered each owner $250 in exchange for an easement allowing the natural gas storage under their land, which was rejected. The defendant did not file an eminent domain proceeding thereafter as required by the Act. Meanwhile, in 2012, another group of landowners had previously filed a class action on behalf of all similarly situated Ohio landowners against the same defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio based on the same alleged conduct of not compensating owners after storing natural gas under their lands. In response to the complaint in the present lawsuit, the defendant filed a counterclaim in the first case in April 2014 seeking to exercise its power of eminent domain over the entire putative class, which included the landowners in the present case. The defendant then moved to dismiss the present case, arguing that under the so-called "first-to-file" rule the putative class plaintiffs in the present case should litigate their claims in the earlier case. The district court found that the first-to-file rule applied and dismissed the present case, from which the plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit, reviewing the dismissal under an abuse of discretion standard, explained that the "first-to-file rule is a prudential doctrine that grows out of the need to manage overlapping litigation across multiple districts . . . [and] provides that, 'when actions involving nearly identical parties and issues have been filed in two different district courts, the court in which the first suit was filed should generally proceed to judgment.'" Noting a scarcity of case law in the Sixth Circuit applying the rule, the Court explained that other circuit courts "generally evaluate three factors: (1) the chronology of events, (2) the similarity of the parties involved, and (3) the similarity of the issues or claims at stake." If all three factors apply, the court "must also determine whether any equitable considerations, such as evidence of 'inequitable conduct, bad faith, anticipatory suits, [or] forum shopping,' merit not applying the first-to-file rule in a particular case." The Court found that all three factors were satisfied in the case at bar, and therefore that the first-to-file rule presumptively applied. The first factor was satisfied because it "simply asks which of the two overlapping cases was filed first" and, although the Court agreed with the plaintiffs that defendant never filed an eminent domain action complaint, and its counterclaim in the first case was not filed until after the present case was already pending, the Court agreed with the defendant that the first case was filed over a year before the plaintiffs here filed their case. Turning to the second factor, similarity of the parties, the Court explained that the "first-to-file rule applies when the parties in the two actions 'substantial[ly] overlap,' even if they are not perfectly identical." It then found that even though the class in the earlier case had not been certified, because "for purposes of identity of the parties when applying the first-to-file rule, courts have looked at whether there is substantial overlap with the putative class even though the class has not yet been certified . . .," the plaintiffs here "undoubtedly would be members" of the class in the first case once certified. Even if the class in the first case included additional class members not parties to the present case, the overlap sufficed to satisfy the second factor. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that even if the plaintiffs here opted out of the class once certified in the first action, this "would undercut the purpose of the first-to-file rule: parties, not courts, would determine when the rule could be applied and could force resource-draining duplicative class actions to proceed simultaneously. This would unduly burden the courts, and could be used as a vexatious litigation tactic. While the opt-out right may allow for (and perhaps anticipate) duplicative litigation, . . . it should not prospectively prohibit courts' efforts to conserve resources by applying the first-to-file rule." Addressing the third factor, similarity of the issues, the Court noted that, as with the second factor, "the issues need only to substantially overlap in order to apply the first-to-file rule." Because the plaintiffs here brought substantially the same claims and were seeking the same relief as the landowners in the first case, the Sixth Circuit found the third factor was satisfied. The Sixth Circuit then addressed whether equitable considerations weighed against applying the first-to-file rule, pointing out that while "[c]ourts have repeatedly warned that the first-to-file rule 'is not a mandate directing wooden application of the rule without regard to extraordinary circumstances, inequitable conduct, bad faith or forum shopping . . . deviations from the rule should be the exception, rather than the norm." The Court found that the defendant did not engage in forum shopping or other inequitable conduct by trying to litigate all claims in the first case, and thus "the equities to not clearly support finding that this is one of those rare cases" where the first-to-file rule should not apply. Turning to the final issue, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that the first-to-file rule applied to the case at bar and "[o]ther circuits have held that dismissal is an option available to a district court when applying the first-to-file rule" in some circumstances. However, the Court found that the case at bar was not one of those circumstances. Relying on the fact that "[o]ther circuits have said that a district court can abuse its discretion by dismissing a case under the first-to-file rule when doing so could adversely affect a party's interests," the Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the second action. The Court reasoned that both the plaintiffs in the present case and the defendant argued that the class could not be certified in the first case, and if this happened the plaintiffs here would not be parties to that case, which could prejudice their ability to have their claims heard on the merits. By way of examples, the Sixth Circuit noted the statute of limitations could pose a problem and, more importantly in the Court's view, because the district court did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, meaning it would be treated as an adjudication on the merits by default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), "will be barred from pursuing their claims against [the defendant natural gas company] if the class in the first case is not certified, if it is certified and the plaintiffs here choose to opt out, or if the plaintiffs here successfully challenge being joined in the first case via the defendant's counterclaim. Because in the Court's view dismissal of the present case would bar the plaintiffs "from fully protecting their interests, even while [the first case] goes forward," the Court concluded that the district court should have stayed the present lawsuit instead of dismissing it. The district court's dismissal order was accordingly reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Sixth Circuit's opinion. COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Hawkesworth, William Holmes, Julie Baker, David Ace, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Commonwealth Limousine Service, Inc. d/b/a Commonwealth Worldwide Chauffeured Transportation and Dawson A. Rutter, Jr., Case No. 1684CV00819 (Mass. Super. Ct., March 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing chauffeured transportation services throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP LLP 585 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536-1800 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.com COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Dover Midstream Specimen Catch Kit -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 25, 2016 Posting date: February 12, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57108 Covidien received notification from third party manufacturer Aplicare of a quality issue related to specific production lots of Aplicare's Castile Soap Towelettes for which Aplicare has initiated a recall. Aplicare has received user complaints stating a perceivable malodor from the soap which has been determined to be related to the presence of Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis in the soap. Affected products A. DOVER MIDSTREAM SPECIMEN CATCH KIT Lot or serial number: Not applicable Model or catalog number: 2090SA 4090SA Manufacturer: Covidien LLC 15 Hampshire Street Mansfield 02048 Massachusetts UNITED STATES DENSO CORP: Class Action Certification Make Take a Year ------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Kirbyson, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that if you drove a vehicle in Manitoba between 2000 and 2010, Norman Boudreau wants you. The Winnipeg-based lawyer has just launched a class-action lawsuit against more than two dozen automobile parts manufacturers from Canada, the U.S., Japan and South Korea, accusing them of price- fixing and conspiracy. The class action alleges the manufacturers' actions, including bid-rigging, resulted in higher prices for consumers while also suppressing competition from other companies. He believes the artificially inflated prices that were paid by the makers of both automobiles and components during the years in question were passed on to consumers who bought or leased new vehicles containing a variety of parts in question or who needed their vehicles repaired with those parts. They include cooling systems, windshield washer systems, starters, alternators, power window motors and air-conditioning systems. Mr. Boudreau said the goal of the class action is to return some of that money to the vehicle owners. "The defendants intentionally engaged in unlawful conduct for their personal financial gain," the statement of claim reads. "The conduct of the defendants was planned and deliberate. It lasted for several years. The defendants profited from their misconduct. Their conduct was high-handed and represented a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behavior." Mr. Boudreau said he's buoyed by the fact the Competition Bureau of Canada has already fined the defendants more than $50 million for the kinds of transgressions he has documented in the 200-page statement of claim he has filed, along with Vancouver-based class- action lawyer David Klein. "So, you can imagine the amount of damages we can get from this class action," Mr. Boudreau said. Just how many Manitobans are eligible to participate remains to be seen, but the drivers of "most of the cars on the streets of Winnipeg" during the 10-year period will be eligible. "The most affected ones are Honda and Toyota passenger vehicles," Mr. Klein said. The unjustified markups on the various parts varies, but even if it was small, because of the many thousands of vehicles involved, Klein said the class action is still worth pursuing because the amount of money attained illegally is likely into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The defendants include Hitachi Automotive Systems, Denso Corp., Yazaki North America and Furakawa Electric Co. A statement of defense has not been filed. The class action has been filed in Manitoba and B.C. Interested motorists can sign up for it at www.boudreaulaw.ca. Vehicle owners shouldn't hold their breath, though, as it will likely take at least a year for the class action to get certified. At that point, it would have to work its way through the court system. Messrs. Klein and Boudreau have worked together in the past, most notably on the class-action lawsuit against the Crocus Investment Fund a decade ago, which secured a $13-million settlement on behalf of unitholders. DIRECT GENERAL: MSPA Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled MSPA Claims 1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the State of Florida v. Direct General Insurance Company, Case No. 16-01330-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade, Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20901-DPG to the proceeding. Direct General Insurance Company owns and operates an insurance company headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arlenys Perdomo, Esq. Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq. Christine Marie Lugo, Esq. Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq. Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq. John Hasan Ruiz, Esq. Timothy J. Van Name, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Ave, #400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 Facsimile: (804) 840-3090 E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com clugo002@fiu.edu fquesada@msprecovery.com glosa@lawofficeslaley.com jruiz@msprecovery.com tvanname@att.net - and - Eric Michael Fresco, Esq. 2921 SW 132 Avenue Miami, FL 33175 Telephone: (786) 314-4106 E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com - and - Gino Moreno, Esq. LA LEY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com - and - Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq. JOHN H RUIZ PA 5040 NW 7th Street, Suite PH1 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Valerie B. Greenberg, Esq. Stacy Jaye Rodriguez, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: 374-5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com valerie.greenberg@akerman.com stacy.harrison@akerman.com DIRECT GENERAL: Faces Branch's Suit in Fla. Over Automated Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Branch's Ranch, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Direct General Insurance Company, Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc., Direct General Corporation, Direct Administration, Inc., Direct National Insurance Company and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:16-cv-00590-JDW- AEP(M.D. Fla., March 14, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of placing calls to consumer's wireless telephone using an automatic dialing system. The Defendants own and operate an insurance company headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------Carlos Soto, Arely Lodge and other similarly situated H.R. representatives, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00445-SDM-TGW (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade County, February 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay, damages, declaratory relief and attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs worked as H.R. Representatives for the Defendants and claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime compensation. Diversified Maintenance Systems is a janitorial service provider in Hillsborough, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody M. Shulman, Esq. Jason Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416~5005 Email: jremer@rgpatterneys.com DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: "Davis Neurology" Sues Over Unsolicited Fax ---------------------------------------------------------------- Davis Neurology, P.A. on behalf of itself and all other entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM, LLC, EVERYDAY HEALTH, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, intending to refer to those persons, corporations or other legal Entities that acted as agents, consultants, Independent contractors or representatives, Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv095-BSM (E.D. Ark., February 24, 2016), seeks statutory damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of sending unsolicited fax messages for the purpose of advertising Defendants' services. DoctorDirectory.com, LLC, is a North Carolina Corporation, organized under Delaware law with principal office address of 1 Page Avenue Suite 280, Asheville, NC. It is a service that helps match patients seeking medical services with the right Healthcare Professionals and it also provides Healthcare Professionals the opportunity to participate in Market Research and other programs that help shape the healthcare industry. Everyday Health, Inc. is a New York Corporation with address at 345 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10014. It provides digital health and wellness solutions, and the company's portfolio includes websites, mobile applications, and social media assets that provide consumers and healthcare professionals with access to health and wellness content. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex G. Streett, Esq. James A. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Tel: (479) 968-2030 Fax: (479) 968-6253 - and - Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 227 2nd Avenue North, 4th Floor Nashville, TN 37201 Tel: (615) 254-8801 Email: jleniski@bransletterlaw.com DODGE: Recalls Charger 2011 Model Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 27, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 19005 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016039TC ID number: 2016039 Manufacturer recall number: S03 Certain vehicles equipped with an original equipment spare tire, the body-side sill assemblies may deform during tire jack use if wheel chocks are not used as instructed in the Owner's Manual. This could cause the vehicle to become unstable and cause the jack to fail, which could result in injury to the operator. Correction: Dealers will provide wheel chocks to vehicle owners. The wheel chocks will be installed with the vehicle's spare tire in such a manner that they must be removed before the spare tire is removed from its stowed location. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- DODGE CHARGER 2011 DUKE ENERGY: Settlement in Progress Energy Merger Has Final Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final order has been issued approving the settlement in the Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation. Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Board of Directors who were also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012 and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) claims based on allegations of materially false and misleading representations and omissions in the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer (CEO). On August 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The court issued an order for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 25, 2015. Under the terms of the agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25 million into the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121 million was paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account. Notice has been sent to members of the class and a final approval hearing was held on August 12, 2015. The final order approving the settlement was issued on November 2, 2015, thus closing the matter. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). DUKE ENERGY: DETM Reached Settlement of Price Reporting Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating Duke Energy affiliate, has reached agreements in principle to settle pending lawsuits related to price reporting. DETM is a defendant, along with numerous other energy companies, in four class-action lawsuits and a fifth single-plaintiff lawsuit pending in a consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contains similar claims that defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. On July 18, 2011, the judge granted a defendant's motion for summary judgment in two of five cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the lower court's decision. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals decision. The case has been reassigned to the same consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada for further proceedings. In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle all of the pending lawsuits. The class-action settlements will be subject to court approval, which is pending. The settlement amount is not material to Duke Energy. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). DUKE ENERGY: Faces "Newton" Class Action in Florida --------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Newton, et al v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC and Florida Power & Light Company, was filed on February 22, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company's customers in Florida. Plaintiffs allege that Florida's Nuclear Cost Recovery Statutes are unconstitutional and are pre-empted by federal law. Duke Energy Florida has not yet been served with the lawsuit. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). DUKE ENERGY: April Hearing on Settlement Objections in Ohio Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing is scheduled for April 2016 to consider objections to the settlement in an Ohio class action lawsuit. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into nonpublic option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization Plan implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class action. Plaintiffs allege claims for antitrust violations under the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraud and conspiracy allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act. On October 21, 2015, the parties received preliminary court approval for a settlement agreement. A litigation settlement reserve was recorded for the full amount of $81 million and classified in Other within Current Liabilities on Duke Energy Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2015. Duke Energy Ohio recognized the full amount in (Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the twelve months ended December 31, 2015. A hearing to consider objections to the settlement is scheduled for April 2016. Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Private Message Harvesting ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that an attorney representing Facebook users on March 16 asked a federal judge to certify a class action against the social network over what he called its "continued systematic harvesting of private message content." Class attorney Michael Sobol said during the March 16 hearing that "extensive and rather contentious and hard-fought discovery" has led plaintiffs to believe that Facebook's source code is designed so that private messages between users are scanned for content that can then be used for advertising purposes, Courthouse News Service reported. "Every time a private message is sent with a URL attachment, Facebook intercepts it, analyzes it and creates a user-specific data structure out of the content of the private message," Mr. Sobol told U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, according to the website. "They have all this stuff sucked up in a vast database," he added. "There needs to be a limitation here on what they're exploiting under promises of privacy." The suit was first brought on behalf of Facebook user Matthew Campbell in 2013, who alleged violations of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, as well as California's Invasion of Privacy Act and section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code. Three years later, attorneys for the plaintiffs are asking Judge Hamilton to certify a class of Facebook users who can join the suit, potentially opening up the case to millions of account holders who have communicated over the platform. "Frankly, this case is about no less than the future of privacy on the Internet," Courthouse News quoted Mr. Sobol as saying. On Facebook's part, attorney Christopher Chorba argued "this case is ill-suited for class treatment because there are a number of individualized issues necessary to resolve plaintiffs' claims," the website reported. "Unless we brought everyone through here, we couldn't possibly know" whether they had consented to having their messages scanned, Facebook's attorney added, according to The Recorder. Companies are exempted from liability under the ECPA only if the sender or receiver have consented to interception, The Recorder noted. FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Flor Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Fair Havens Center, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 38196343 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade County, February 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and damages resulting from unlawful, retaliatory discharge pursuant to the Whistleblowers Act. Plaintiff worked as a nurse for the Defendants and claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime compensation and was terminated as a result of her complaints. Fair Havens Center is a nursing home in Miami Springs, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody M. Shulman, Esq. Jason Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416~5005 Email: jremer@rgpatterneys.com FEDERAL NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Burke" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Burke, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No. 3:16-cv-00153-HEH (E.D. Va., March 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Federal National Mortgage Association is a government-sponsored mortgage loan company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 4084 University Drive, Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com FLINT, MI: Congress Calls for Resignation of Governor Snyder ------------------------------------------------------------ NBC News reports that several members of Congress called for Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and the chief of the Environmental Protection Agency to resign on March 17 in a tense hearing over the Flint water crisis. "In February is when you first arrived on the scene, and it wasn't until January of the next year that you actually did something. That's the problem," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. "You didn't take action. You didn't. You could have pulled that switch." Both Ms. McCarthy and the governor expressed remorse for the water crisis, but McCarthy said because it happened under a state- appointed emergency manager, "that precluded us from being able to jump in to the rescue." ""Wow. You just don't get it. You just don't get it. You still don't get it," a furious Chaffetz said, and asked her why she hasn't resigned over the public health emergency. "You didn't take action. You didn't. You could have pulled that switch." Ms. McCarthy said the agency "took action from that point forward," adding it shouldn't have been "so trusting of the state." Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., called Flint "possibly the largest and most glaring failure of government since Hurricane Katrina" and asked Snyder why he didn't act sooner, either. "When people reported rashes, hair loss, odor and even sewage, your administration said the water was safe. When E. coli and and fecal bacteria were found in the water and boiled water alerts were distributed, your administration said the water was safe," he said. "Governor, don't you have a moral responsibility to resign?" "I'm making a commitment to solve this problem," Snyder replied. Mr. Snyder said he was given incorrect information about the water for over a year. "Not a day or night goes by that this tragedy doesn't weigh on my mind -- the questions I should have asked, the answers I should have demanded," he said. Again and again. the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality insisted water from the Flint River was safe, Snyder said. It wasn't until Oct. 1, 2015 -- nearly 18 months after the city started taking its water from the Flint River as a cost-cutting measure -- that Snyder said he learned the water was contaminated. "Let me be blunt. This was a failure of government at all levels," he told the hearing. Mr. Snyder told Congress he then took immediate action: sealing damaged pipes, distributing water filters, and testing residents, particularly children, for high lead levels. Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., balked at that. "I'm not buying that you didn't know about any of this until October 2015," he said. "You were not in a medically induced coma for a year and I have had about enough of your false contrition and your phony apologies." "People who put dollars over the fundamental safety of people do not belong in government, and you need to resign too, Governor Snyder," he said. Flint resident Broghan MacIntyre told the committee on March 17 the situation in Flint has stripped the city of basic modern conveniences taken for granted by others. "Just to brush our teeth -- we can't just use the faucet like we do here in Washington," Mr. MacIntyre said. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said while the EPA should have done more, it was Snyder's administration that bears the majority of the blame. "The EPA should have done more, they should have rushed in sooner to rescue the people of Michigan from Governor Snyder's vindictive administration and his utter incompetence at every level," Mr. Cummings said. Flint began drawing water from the Flint River in April 2014. This is the second time in a week the congressional panel has drilled Michigan and EPA officials about the water. In a hearing on March 15, former city and federal officials placed the blame on each other, as a former EPA official who resigned over the water crisis defended the agency's actions. At the end of the March 17 session, Mr. Cummings reiterated his call to Snyder. "I've got to tell you: You've got to resign," he said. Bishop Bernadel L. Jefferson, of Flint, told the hearing that she wants action. "I pray that what we've done today, what we've done this week, the voices that have been heard, that change will come, that something will happen," Ms. Jefferson said. "And that's what hope looks like to me." "You don't know what it's like to live out of a bottle until you have to do it," she said. FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Philips" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California, San Jose Division denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case WILLIAM PHILIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs William Philips, Jaime Goodman, and Alison Colburn brought an action against defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford). On June 27, 2014, plaintiffs filed their original complaint but made an amended complaint (FAC) on September 8, 2014, which contained fifty one causes of action. On October 24, 2014, Ford moved to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. At a hearing held on February 12, 2015, the court granted Ford's motion to dismiss the FAC with leave to amend. The California Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC) on March 27, 2015. The SAC asserted four causes of action under California law: (1) violation of the unlawful and unfair prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (2) violation of the fraud prong of the UCL; (3) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); and (4) common law fraudulent concealment. California Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of statewide consumers who purchased or leased Ford Fusion vehicles, model years 2010 through 2014, or Ford Focus vehicles, model years 2012 through 2014. California Plaintiffs allege that the vehicles are equipped with a defective Electronic Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system. On April 30, 2015, Ford moved to dismiss the SAC, arguing that California plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On July 7, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part Ford's motion to dismiss the SAC. On May 26, 2015, Ford announced a voluntary recall of 2011 and 2012 Fusions and according to Ford, approximately 422,131 vehicles are subject to the recall. On October 28, 2015, Ford filed a motion to dismiss and argues that the court should dismiss the action because the recall provides California plaintiffs the relief they seek under the prudential mootness and primary jurisdiction doctrines, and because California plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue their claims as to the 2012-2014 Focus and 2013-2014 Fusion. A copy of Judge Koh's order dated February 22, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/ZN09WNfrom Leagle.com. William Philips, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- John Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@gelaw.com -- Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd, P.C.; Nathan Bowen Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Niall A Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- at Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC Phillip Clay Cecil, Robert Halsey, Temple Halsey, Performance Fire Protection, LLC, Jason Wilkinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- John Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@gelaw.com -- Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd, P.C.; Nathan Bowen Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Niall A Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- at Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC Alison Colburn, Plaintiff, represented by David Brian Fernandes-- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd PC; Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; Nathan Bowen Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC Ian Colburn, Plaintiff, represented by David Brian Fernandes-- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd PC Jaime Goodman, Plaintiff, represented by David Brian Fernandes-- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd PC; Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; Nathan Bowen Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M. Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- Andrew L. Chang -- achang@shb.com -- Christopher Scott McRae -- cmcrae@shb.com -- Michael Kevin Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- at Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.; Dustin Alan Lane -- dustin.lane@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Todd Andrew Croftchik -- todd.croftchik@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and Brooke LLP FORD MOTOR: Recalls Ranger 2014 Model Due to Defective Airbag ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 25, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 29458 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016033TC ID number: 2016033 Manufacturer recall number: 16S03 On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the front driver airbag inflator. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FORD RANGER 2004 FRANKLIN FUELING: Recalls Gas Station Hose/Swivel Fitting Sets -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Franklin Fueling Systems Inc., of Madison, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of about 9,000 Gas station hose/swivel fitting sets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The swivel fitting can separate from the hose, causing fuel to leak, posing a fire and explosion hazard. This recall involves gas station hose and swivel fitting sets used with gas station nozzles to dispense or transfer refined fuels such as gasoline, diesel, ethanol blends and biodiesel blends. The sets are made of at least one metal swivel fitting attached to 3/4-inch or 1-inch FLEX-ING(TM) brand FLEX-ON(TM) Hardwall, Marina and Softwall hoses. The attached hoses were sold in varying lengths. The size in inches and millimeters, and part number 559N or 559NMP are printed on the sidewall of the hoses. Hardwall hoses were sold in the colors black, blue, green, red and yellow, and have "FLEX-ING FLEX-ON HW FR PREMIUM FUEL HOSE BY FRANKLIN FUELING SYSTEMS" printed on the sidewall. Marina hoses were sold in the color green and have "2 BD. STYLE BC MARINA GASOLINE" on the sidewall. Softwall hoses were sold in the color black and have "FLEX-ING FLEX-ON SILVER SW PREMIUM FUEL HOSE BY FRANKLIN FUELING SYSTEMS on the sidewall. Sets that have swivel fittings with a date code in the following range are being recalled: Hose Diameter Date Code Range (MWWYY format) ------------- ------------------------------ 3/4-inch M1615 to M3515 1-inch M2215 to M4115 The date code is stamped on the nut of the swivel fitting. Franklin Fueling Systems has received reports of three incidents in which a swivel fitting has separated from a hose causing a fuel spill. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/9oUM7E The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at Distributors, contractors and gasoline stations nationwide from April 2015 through September 2015 for swivel fittings with 3/4- inch hoses and May 2015 through October 2015 for swivel fittings with 1-inch hoses. The hose/swivel fitting sets were sold for between $18 and $400. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hose/swivel fitting sets and contact the firm to receive a full refund or a replacement hose/swivel fitting set. GAMWYN-WILZIN: Faces "Hafter" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Jo Cille Hafter and all others similarly situated v. Gamwyn- Wilzin, LLC and Gamwyn-Wilzin Park Neighborhood Association, Case No. 4:16-cv-00048-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., March 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants over Civil Rights Act violation. The Defendants operate a residential neighborhood in a park-like setting. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Brad Pigott, Esq. PIGOTT REEVES JOHNSON & MINOR, PA P.O. Box 22725 Jackson, MS 39202 Telephone: (601) 354-2121 E-mail: bpigott@prjlawyers.com GE LIGHTING: Recalls High-Intensity Led Lamps --------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with GE Lighting, of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 35,000 High-intensity LED lamps (in addition, about 500 were sold in Mexico). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The lamp can separate from its base and fall onto consumers below, posing an impact hazard. This recall involves GE Lighting high intensity discharge (HID) LED lamps. The lamps are used in lighting fixtures for warehouses, schools and gymnasiums. The lamps are 5 1/2 inches in diameter by 11 1/2 inches long and weigh about 3 pounds. The lamps were sold in a blue and white carton with "ED37/EX39 base" on the front and "PC:21259" on the back above the bar code. Recalled lamps have the GE logo and the following information on the white plastic base of the lamp: LED165/M400/740, 165W, 4000K, 20000 Lumens, China and date code K213 or K245. The firm has received four reports of the lamp separating from the lamp base. No injuries or property damage have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/AKsDBx The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at GE Lighting authorized dealers and electrical distributors nationwide, including Crescent Electric Supply Company, Graybar and W.W. Grainger Industrial Supply from September 2015 through December 2015 for between $250 and $300. Consumers should immediately contact GE Lighting for a free repair kit and installation guide. GEICO INDEMNITY: Judge Denies Insurer's Bid for Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the District of Colorado denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and brief in support in the case LORI E. MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-cv-03257-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.) In March 2008, plaintiff Lori Morgan insured her Honda motorcycle with GEICO Indemnity Company (GEICO). GEICO issued the motorcycle insurance policy to Ms. Morgan on March 15, 2008. The 2008 policy had coverage for medical payments (Med Pay). On August 6, 2013, plaintiff called GEICO to add a 1992 Harley- Davidson motorcycle to her insurance policy. Plaintiff asserted that she told GEICO she wanted the same coverage that she had on her previous policy and denies that any discussion of Med Pay coverage occurred, including any rejection of Med Pay coverage. However GEICO's Policy Log for plaintiff's policy indicates that plaintiff declined Med Pay coverage and that plaintiff declined said coverage verbally. Plaintiff was in an accident while driving her Harley-Davidson motorcycle on June 28, 2014, suffered injuries and incurred medical expenses as a result of the accident. Following her accident, plaintiff's medical provider made a request to GEICO for payment of plaintiff's medical expenses, which GEICO rejected. GEICO told plaintiff that she did not have Med Pay coverage and that it is not mandatory to include Med Pay coverage under a motorcycle policy in Colorado. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint and jury demand in the District Court for Boulder County, Colorado against GEICO alleging several claims for relief related to GEICO's denial of Med Pay coverage, but the defendant removed the case to the present court on the ground that the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and asserts four claims for relief: (1) breach of insurance contract; (2) declaratory relief stating that the GEICO policy contains Med Pay coverage of $5,000; (3) violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 10-3-1115; and (4) common-law bad faith denial of insurance benefits. GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims, argues that Ms. Morgan never had Med Pay coverage and therefore GEICO's denial of Med Pay benefits under the policy is not a breach of the policy as a matter of law. GEICO further argues that, because the policy does not provide Med Pay coverage, plaintiff's other common law and statutory bad faith claims fail. Plaintiff responds that she never declined Med Pay coverage and that the policy provides Med Pay coverage. Judge Brimmer denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and brief in support. A copy of Judge Brimmer's order dated March 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/eJNtERfrom Leagle.com. Lori E Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by: L. Daniel Rector, Esq. Terry Ernest Rector, Esq. RECTOR LAW FIRM 131 S Weber Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: 719-578-1106 Geico Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory Keith Falls -- gkf@dmkpc.com.com -- at Deisch, Marion, & Klaus, P.C.; Meloney Cargil -- at Perry, Perry Law P.C. GENERAL HOME: Faces "Arkin" Class Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against General Home Medical Supply, Inc. The case is captioned Steven Arkin, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. General Home Medical Supply, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:16-cv- 00589-SCB-EAJ (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com GOOGLE INC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Collection of Faceprints ----------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that a Chicago resident brought a putative class action against Google for allegedly collecting, storing and using, without consent and in violation of BIPA, the faceprints of non-users of the Google Photos service, a cloud- based photo and video storage and organization app (Rivera v. Google, Inc., No. 16-02714 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 1, 2016)). Under BIPA, an entity cannot collect, capture, purchase, or otherwise obtain a person's "biometric identifier" or "biometric information," unless it first: (1) informs the subject in writing that a biometric identifier is being collected; (2) informs the subject in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected, stored, and used; and (3) receives a written release executed by the subject. The statute contains defined terms and limitations, and parties in other suits are currently litigating what "biometric identifiers" and "biometric information" mean under the statute and whether the collection of facial templates from uploaded photographs using sophisticated facial recognition technology fits within the ambit of the statute. The statute also provides that entities in possession of certain collected biometric data post a written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for deleting data when the initial purpose for collection has been satisfied. Notably, BIPA provides for a private right of action, and potential awards of $1,000 in statutory damages for each negligent violation ($5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation), as well as injunctive relief and attorney's fees. In the suit against Google, the plaintiff alleges that the Google Photos service created, collected and stored millions of faceprints from Illinois users who uploaded photos (and, like the plaintiff, the faceprints of non-users whose faceprints were collected merely because their images appeared in users' uploaded photos). The plaintiff claims that, in violation of BIPA, Google failed to inform "unwitting non-users who had their face templates collected" of the specific purpose and length of term of collection, failed to obtain written consent from individuals prior to collection, or otherwise post publicly available policies identifying their face template retention schedules. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief compelling Google to comply with BIPA, and an award of statutory damages. Since the named plaintiff claims to be a non-user of the Google Photos service, Google may not be able to transfer the matter to California based upon the forum selection clause in its terms of service. Yet, as with the prior suits against other providers, Google will likely invoke jurisdictional defenses along with multiple arguments about how the Illinois statute is inapplicable to its activities based upon certain statutory exceptions. We will continue to follow this dispute, along with the other existing biometric privacy-related litigation. Indeed, this past week, the photo storage service Shutterfly, which is facing a similar suit to Google, is seeking to send the matter to arbitration based upon allegations that the unnamed Shutterfly user who uploaded a photo depicting the plaintiff was actually his fianc‚e (and current wife). H-E-B: Recalls Light Tuna in Oil Due to Contamination ----------------------------------------------------- H-E-B is voluntarily recalling 224 cases (10,752 cans) of Hill Country Fare brand 5 oz. Chunk Light Tuna in Oil. This recall has been initiated because the product, produced at a co-packer, may have been undercooked due to an equipment malfunction, which was uncovered during a routine inspection. These deviations were part of the commercial sterilization process and could result in contamination by spoilage organisms or pathogens, which could lead to life-threatening illness if consumed. There have been no reported illnesses to date, H-E-B is issuing this voluntary recall in abundance of caution to ensure the highest level of food safety and quality. The Hill Country Fare brand 5oz. canned Chunk Light Tuna in Oil was sold at H-E-B Texas stores in single cans between Feb. 24, 2016 and March 16, 2016. The voluntary recall impacts the following product only: Hill Country Fare Chunk Light Tuna in Oil UPC code: 0 4122065335 5 Product lot code 6O9FZ SCEES Best By date (printed on the bottom of the can) is 2/9/19. Customers who purchased the product can return it to the store for a full refund. Customers with any questions or concerns may contact H-E-B Customer Service at 1-855-432-4438 Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/DuBK1j H&R BLOCK: Judge Affirms Trial Court's Denial of Arbitration Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Presiding Judge Cynthia L. Martin of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, affirmed the district court's order denying a motion to compel arbitration in the case MANUEL H. LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondent, v. H&R BLOCK, INC., ET AL., Appellants, No. WD78465 (Mo. Ct. App.) On April 14, 2011, Manuel Lopez (Lopez) visited an H&R Block, Inc.'s office in Kansas City to have his 2010 tax returns prepared. Lopez was required to sign a standard form Client Service Agreement (2011 CSA). The 2011 CSA was a single page agreement that identified the professional services H&R Block agreed to provide, and the documents and information Lopez agreed to provide to permit H&R Block to perform its services. The 2011 CSA contained an arbitration provision. Lopez did not exercise his right to opt-out of arbitration after signing the 2011 CSA. On April 4, 2012, Lopez returned to an H&R Block to have his 2011 tax returns prepared. By then, Lopez had consulted with counsel, and counsel had contacted H&R Block questioning a $2 compliance fee Lopez was charged in 2011. When Lopez returned to H&R Block to have his 2011 tax returns prepared, he was again required to sign a Client Service Agreement (2012 CSA). This time, however, Lopez timely exercised his right to opt-out of arbitration, using the on-line address set forth in the 2012 CSA. He did so on April 13, 2012. On April 16, 2012, Lopez filed a class action lawsuit against H&R Block on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated H&R Block customers in Missouri. The petition alleged that H&R Block prepared Lopez's tax returns in both 2011 and 2012 and that Lopez paid a $2 or $4 compliance fee both years. The petition alleged that H&R Block engaged in a scheme in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and state common law by misrepresenting that the compliance fee was charged to comply with IRS requirements. The petition acknowledged that H&R Block's Client Service Agreement form contained an arbitration provision but alleged that the provision is unconscionable and cannot be enforced. H&R Block filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of Lopez's claims. Specifically, H&R Block alleged that although Lopez was certainly aware of the opt-out clause -- indeed he was represented by counsel who reviewed the arbitration clause during the opt-out period when Lopez declined to opt-out. On October 24, 2012, H&R Block filed a pleading advising the trial court that it had just discovered that Lopez timely exercised his right to opt out of arbitration following execution of the 2012 CSA. Based on a stipulation between the parties, the trial court entered an order on December 28, 2012, permitting H&R Block to withdraw its original motion to compel arbitration. The stipulation and related trial court order authorized H&R Block to re-file the identical motion to compel and supporting suggestions, which H&R Block did on January 3, 2013. The stipulation and related order also required H&R Block to secure leave to file a revised motion to compel, which H&R Block did on January 29, 2013. The revised motion to compel arbitration was expressly limited to Lopez's claims regarding the 2011 compliance fee and relied exclusively on Lopez's execution of the 2011 CSA. H&R Block agreed that Lopez's claims relating to the 2012 compliance fee are not subject to arbitration. On remand, Lopez and H&R Block argued the merits of the revised motion to compel arbitration relying on evidence previously submitted. On March 12, 2015, the trial court again denied H&R Block's motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration provision in the 2011 CSA to be unconscionable and unenforceable. The trial court also concluded that the opt-out right described in the arbitration provision was illusory. H&R Block appealed the trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Judge Martin affirmed the trial court's order denying defendants' motion to compel arbitration. A copy of Judge Martin's opinion dated March 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/hPw1pqfrom Leagle.com. The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District panel consists of Presiding Judge Cynthia L. Martin and Judges Mark D. Pfeiffer and Karen King Mitchell. HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Seeks Back Wages and Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Yesika Medina, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Harbor Village Inc. and Robert G. Niznik, Individually, Defendant, Case No. 2016-004481-CA-01 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade County, February 24, 2016), seeks all back wages, liquidated and compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and such additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Harbor Village is a wellness treatment facility in Miami-Dade where Medina was employed. She was terminated after she insisted on her unpaid wages and overtime premium. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody M. Shulman, Esq. Jason Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416~5005 Email: jremer@rgpatterneys.com HEARTLAND INDUSTRIAL: State Court Suit v. Class Counsel Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division reversed the Law Division's order in the appealed case CHRISTINE SUAREZ LOURES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, L.L.P., Defendant-Appellant, No. A-2095-14T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in New York, New York with offices in New York, Chicago, Illinois, and San Diego, California. The Law Firm has no offices in New Jersey and owns no property in New Jersey. The Law Firm filed a federal securities class action entitled Egleston v. Heartland Indus. Partners, L.P., No. 06-13555, 2009 U.S., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain purchasers (the Egleston class) of publicly-traded securities in Collins & Aikman, Inc. (C&A). On July 10, 2006, the Law Firm was appointed lead counsel. Plaintiff Christine Suarez Loures, was a member of the Egleston class, having purchased 900,000 shares of C&A common stock during the relevant time period. In February 2010, the Egleston parties agreed to a settlement. Plaintiff returned her completed Proof of Claim on June 3, 2010. The Firm estimated a distribution of twenty-eight cents per share. Acknowledging twenty-eight cents per share was an approximation, plaintiff expressly reserved the right to opt out in the event of fraud or other equitable grounds despite the passage of the opt-out deadline. Plaintiff never opted out of the settlement. On June 10, 2010, the court entered an order approving both the plan for allocating the settlement fund and defendant's request for attorney's fees and expenses. The order approved the plan of allocation, finding and concluding the plan to be fair and reasonable to the Egleston Class Members. That same day, the court entered a final judgment certifying the class, certifying defendant as class counsel, and directing the parties to consummate the fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement. The district court retained exclusive jurisdiction. The court subsequently issued a settlement distribution order, and plaintiff received the pro rata proceeds of her claim in May 2011. Plaintiff did not, however, receive the estimated 28 cents per share, but instead she received three cents per share. Dissatisfied with the amount of the distribution, she filed this legal malpractice action in the Law Division. Plaintiff's malpractice action alleged the Law Firm had committed legal malpractice, made a negligent misrepresentation, and breached its fiduciary duty. The Law Firm filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and, following oral argument, the court denied defendant's motion. The court determined it had specific personal jurisdiction as well as subject matter jurisdiction. The court declined to apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens. On leave granted, the Law Firm appeals the Law Division order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the Law Division order and dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. "We conclude the federal court's retention of exclusive jurisdiction over the parties for all matters relating to the action requires plaintiff to file this action in that venue. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the Law Firm's dismissal motion, and we dismiss the complaint without prejudice subject to reinstatement should the federal district court decline jurisdiction," the Appellate Division said. A copy of Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division's per curiam decision is available at http://goo.gl/8UzqEHfrom Leagle.com. For Appellant, Thomas H. Burt -- burt@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz; Mark M. Tallmadge -- mtallmadge@bressler.com -- at Bressler, Amery & Ross For respondent: Michael S. Kasanoff, Esq. Michael S. Kasanoff, Attorney at Law 157 Broad St Ste 321 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: 732-747-5348 The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division panel consists of Judges Carol E. Higbee and William E. Nugent. HERBALIFE LTD: 3rd Amended Complaint in Securities Case Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice in the case, In re Herbalife, Ltd. Securities Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al.). On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class of investors that had purchased shares of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the Court approved the appointment of different shareholders as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of counsel. On September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the Company, and certain of its officers. The Amended Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated pyramid schemes in history." The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29, 2014. On March 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint and dismissed one of the shareholders as lead plaintiff. On May 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the Company and one of its officers. On July 28, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by August 27, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the Company and one of its officers. On November 23, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. No appeal was filed and the judgment is final. Herbalife is a global nutrition company founded in 1980 that develops and sells weight management, healthy meals and snacks, sports and fitness, energy and targeted nutritional products as well as personal care products. HONDA: Recalls Accord 2008 Model Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 25, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 23156 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016032TC ID number: 2016032 On certain vehicles, over time, moisture could enter the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) controller and could cause a fault in the airbag system. This could result in the airbag controller becoming inoperative, which would prevent the airbag(s) from deploying. Failure of an airbag to deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the SRS control module. Note: This condition would cause the illumination of the SRS warning light. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HONDA ACCORD 2008 HONEST CO: Alba Says "Natural" Class Action Claims Without Merit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Bielanski, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that makers of cosmetics could benefit from certain guidelines in order to avoid class action lawsuits such as one filed in February against actress Jessica Alba's brand, a St. Louis attorney says. A class action lawsuit filed Feb. 12 by two consumers in New York takes aim at The Honest Company, a maker of cosmetics and personal care products, for its claims of being "all natural." The lawsuit is built on New York law protecting against false or misleading claims from product manufacturers. According to attorney Cicely Lubben -- cicely.lubben@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard Street, the lawsuit is likely one of what will be a growing number brought against companies that claim their products are "natural" or "organic." Foods and certain products, she told Legal Newsline, have industry guidelines that help to define when the word can be used, but items like cosmetics lack such guidance. "It seem like there's a gap for other non-food organic products," she said. "And that's where I think it would be helpful for the government or industry to provide more guidance." Though a number of marketing terms have established guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission, including "compostable" and "non-toxic," it has not yet issued similar guidelines for "natural" or "organic." Ms. Lubben said The Honest Company will need to have an established, scientific method for quantifying that its products are as "natural" as they claim to be. This could prove a moving target, as the defense would need to address what a "reasonable consumer" would interpret by their marketing statements. That ambiguity, she said, is more likely to favor the plaintiff than The Honest Company. "(The government) is going to err on the side of telling companies to disclose more information and to explain why they're calling things 'natural,'" she said. "They're going to protect the consumer more." Courts, however, are increasingly placing the burden of sifting through misleading advertising on the consumer, according to Ms. Lubben. She wrote in a blog post that broadly stating that a claim was misleading is not enough, requiring consumers to "instead have to come forward with evidence to substantiate that a particular 'natural' or 'organic' claim is false or misleading." The most recent lawsuit is not the company's first over a similar issue. Last September, a class action lawsuit was filed over the company's sunscreen. In that suit, the named plaintiff claim that not only did the product contain synthetic chemicals, but that it was inneffective at avoiding sunburns. Alba, co-founder of the company, told People magazine at the time that the accusations were "baseless and without merit," and pledged to increase education efforts to help people understand the difference between chemical and mineral sunscreens. HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Sodium Bicarbonate Injections -------------------------------------------------- Hospira, Inc., a Pfizer company, is voluntarily recalling one lot of 8.4% Sodium Bicarbonate Injection, USP (NDC: 0409-6625-02, Lot 56-148-EV, Expiry 1AUG2017) at the hospital/retail level due to the presence of a particulate within a single-dose glass fliptop vial. The issue was identified through a confirmed complaint. If the particulate is not observed prior to IV administration and breaks off into smaller particulates, passing through the catheter, it may result in localized inflammation, allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, granuloma formation or microembolic effects (IV only). Larger particulates may block the infusion of solution, potentially resulting in a delay in therapy. The likelihood of risk to the patient is low due to the high detectability of the particulate prior to or at the point of care. Although serious in nature, the probability of harm in this case is low due to the high detectability of the non-conformance. To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events associated with this issue for this lot. Hospira places the utmost emphasis on patient safety and product quality at every step in the manufacturing and supply chain process. The product is packaged 50 mEq (1mEq/mL), 4.2 grams (84 mg/mL), 50mL, Single-dose, packaged 4 boxes of 25 vials per case. The lot was distributed nationwide in the U.S. to wholesalers and hospitals in December 2015. Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine the root cause and corrective and preventive actions. Sodium Bicarbonate Injection, USP is indicated in the treatment of metabolic acidosis; in the treatment of certain drug intoxications, in poisoning by salicylates or methyl alcohol and in certain hemolytic reactions. Sodium bicarbonate also is indicated in severe diarrhea, which is often accompanied by significant loss of bicarbonate. Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Inform Healthcare Professionals in your organization of this recall. If you have further distributed the recalled product, please notify any accounts or additional locations which may have received the recalled product from you. Further, please instruct entities that may have received the recalled product from you that if they redistributed the product, they should notify their accounts, locations or facilities of the recall to the hospital/retail level. Hospira will be notifying its direct customers via a recall letter and is arranging for impacted product to be returned to Stericycle in the United States. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-888-965-6077 between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. HSBC HOLDINGS: WM/Reuters Rates Suit Pending in Canada ------------------------------------------------------ HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two putative class actions were filed in Canada against various HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank Canada, and numerous other financial institutions in September 2015, alleging that defendants conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters foreign exchange benchmark rates. The cases make allegations under Canadian law. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. HSBC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Gold Price-Fixing Suit Up for Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing has been scheduled this month on the motion to dismiss class actions over alleged price-fixing of gold. Beginning in March 2014, numerous putative class actions were filed in the US District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of California, naming HSBC and other members of The London Gold Market Fixing Limited as defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 2004 to the present, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold derivatives during the afternoon London gold fix for their collective benefit in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA') and New York state law. The actions were subsequently consolidated in the New York District Court. An amended complaint was filed in March 2015, which defendants moved to dismiss. A hearing has been scheduled for March 2016. HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Silver Price-Fixing Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing has been scheduled this month on the motion to dismiss class actions over alleged price-fixing of silver. Beginning in July 2014, numerous putative class actions were filed in the US District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, naming HSBC and other members of The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd as defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 1999 to the present, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of silver and silver derivatives for their collective benefit in violation of US antitrust laws, the CEA and New York state law. The actions were subsequently consolidated in the New York District Court. An amended complaint was filed in April 2015, which defendants moved to dismiss. A hearing has been scheduled for March 2016. HSBC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Platinum Price-Fixing Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that defendants have filed a motion to dismiss class actions over the alleged price-fixing of platinum. Between late 2014 and early 2015, numerous putative class actions were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming HSBC, and other members of The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company Limited as defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 2008 to the present, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of platinum group metals ('PGM') and PGM-based financial products for their collective benefit in violation of US antitrust laws and the US Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA'). An amended complaint was filed in August 2015, which defendants moved to dismiss. No further updates were provided in HSBC's SEC report. HSBC HOLDINGS: Gold Price-Fixing Suit Filed in Ontario ------------------------------------------------------ HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative class action under Canadian law was filed in December 2015 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against various HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank Canada, and other financial institutions. Plaintiffs allege that, from January 2004 to March 2014, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold-related investment instruments in violation of the Canadian Competition Act and common law. No further updates were provided in HSBC's SEC report. HSBC HOLDINGS: April 2016 Final Hearing on CDS Case Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for April 2016 in the class action lawsuits related to Credit default swap. In July 2013, HSBC received a Statement of Objections from the Commission relating to its ongoing investigation of alleged anti- competitive activity by a number of banks and other market participants in the credit derivatives market between 2006 and 2009. The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary views and does not prejudge the final outcome of its investigation. HSBC submitted a response and attended a hearing in May 2014. Following the hearing, the Commission decided in December 2015 to close the case against all 13 banks, including all of the HSBC entities; however, the Commission's investigation relating to Markit and ISDA is ongoing. HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc and HSBC Bank USA were named as defendants, amongst others, in numerous putative class actions filed in the New York District Court and the Illinois District Court. These class actions allege that the defendants, which include ISDA, Markit and several other financial institutions, conspired to restrain trade in violation of US antitrust laws by, amongst other things, restricting access to credit default swap pricing exchanges and blocking new entrants into the exchange market. The plaintiffs in these suits purport to represent a class of all persons who purchased credit default swaps from or sold credit default swaps to defendants primarily in the US. In October 2013, these cases were consolidated in the New York District Court (the 'Consolidated Action'). In September 2015, the HSBC defendants reached an agreement with plaintiffs to resolve the Consolidated Action, subject to court approval. In October 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for April 2016. IC: Recalls CE and RE School Bus 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 21, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 23 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016027TC ID number: 2016027 Manufacturer recall number: 16501 Certain school buses may not conform to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 131 - School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. The STOP decal may not adhere properly to the stop sign and could peel off without warning, which could cause it to fail to meet the requirements of the standard. This could increase the risk of injury for the passengers exiting the school bus. Correction: Specialty Manufacturing Inc. will provide owners with a replacement stop sign blade assembly. If owners are not comfortable installing the blade assembly themselves, they can take their vehicle to a dealer for the installation. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- IC CE SCHOOL BUS 2016 IC RE SCHOOL BUS 2016 IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Gothem Floor and Table Lamps -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 30,600 Gothem floor and table lamps. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Cables damaged during manufacturing can come in contact with the metal body of the lamp, posing a shock hazard to consumers. The lamps are brush-finished nickel plated and have a dimmer switch. The floor lamp is 49 inches tall, and the table lamps are 14 or 18 inches tall. "Gothem" and the IKEA logo are printed on the label attached to the underside of each lamp base. Three reports of minor shock have been received worldwide. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/dP2rIR The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at IKEA stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from October 2015 through February 2016 for between $20 and $50. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled floor and table lamps and return them to any IKEA store for a full refund. INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC: Recalls Hammered Enamel Finish Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 27, 2016 Posting date: January 27, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public This recall involves Hammerite(R) Rust Cap(R) Hammered Enamel Finish a self-priming, rust preventive coating. The affected product was sold in different container types: 946 mL (quart can), 3.8 L (gallon can) and aerosol and are listed below: Product Name UPC Code ------------ -------- Hammered Black Brush Grade Enamel 51652431407 Hammered Black Aerosol Metal Finish 51652411409 Hammered Gold Brush Grade Enamel Finish 51652431704 Hammered Gold Aerosol Enamel Finish 51652411706 Hammered Gray Brush Grade Enamel Finish 51652431452 Hammered Gray Aerosol Enamel Finish 51652411454 Hammered Light Blue Brush Enamel Finish 51652431452 Hammered Light Blue Aerosol Enamel Finish 51652411508 Hammered Mid Green Brush Grade Enamel Finish 51652431759 Hammered Mid Green Aerosol Enamel Finish 51652411751 Hammered Silver Gray Brush Grade Enamel Finish 51652431056 Hammered Silver Gray Aerosol Enamel Finish 51652411058 Health Canada's inspection process has revealed that the products do not meet labelling requirements for consumer chemical products under Canadian law. The consumer product does not have proper hazard labelling required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The improper labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products and lead to serious illness, injury, or death. Neither Health Canada nor Industrial Plastics & Paints Ltd has received any reports of consumer incidents related to the use of this product. 42 units of the recalled products were sold in various retail stores in British Columbia and Alberta. The recalled products were sold in Canada from 2011 to 2015. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: Masterchem Industries Imperial Missouri UNITED STATES Importer: Industrial Plastic & Paints Ltd Victoria British Columbia CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recall product and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. For more information, consumers may contact Industrial Plastic & Paints toll-free at 1-800-667-1757 ext. 112 between 9 a.m and 5 p.m PST from Monday to Friday or visit the firm's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. I PLAY: Recalls Glass Food Storage Cubes Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2016 Posting date: January 28, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56872 The recalled glass food storage cubes are sold in a set of four with coloured rubberized plastic lids and fit into one storage tray. The cubes are sold in 2-ounce (60 mL) and 4-ounce (118 mL) sizes. The lid colours and trays of the affected lot of 2-ounce (60 mL) cubes include blue, green and pink. The lid colours and trays of the affected 4-ounce (118 mL) cubes include blue, green, pink and yellow. "green sprouts" is molded into each plastic lid, on the edges of the matching plastic storage tray and on the bottom of each quadrant of the storage tray. "green sprouts(R) by i play., Inc." and "Made in China" are molded into the bottom of each glass cube. On the bottom of the plastic storage tray is a tracking dial with one of the following markings: An arrow that points to "11" and the numbers on the sides of the arrow read "4" on the left of the arrow and "1" on the right. An arrow that points to "5" and the numbers on the sides of the arrow read "1" on the left of the arrow and "5" on the right. The glass containers can break unexpectedly, posing a risk of injury. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. In the United States, i play. has received 15 reports of incidents, and the CPSC is aware of eight additional incidents from online reviews. No injuries were reported. Approximately 239 of the recalled glass food cubes were sold in Canada through various retailers. Approximately 68,400 of the recalled glass food cubes were sold in the United States through various retailers. The recalled products were sold from June 2015 through December 2015 in Canada and the United States. Manufactured in China. Distributor: i play., incorporated Asheville North Carolina UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled food cubes and contact i play. for instructions on receiving a coupon for the retail price good toward the purchase of a new i play. product and shipping. For more information, consumers can contact i play. Toll-free at 800-876-1574 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Consumers may also contact the company by email or online at the i play website and click on the "Health & Safety" link at the bottom of the right side of the homepage under the Support column for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/jbo7Tw JCPENNY CORP: Judge Grants 2nd Class Cert. Bid in "Garcia" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case LAURA GARCIA and LORE REDNOUR, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JCPENNEY CORPORATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12- cv-3687 (N.D. Ill.) Plaintiffs Laura Garcia and Lore Rednour, for themselves and on behalf of the class they seek to represent brought a lawsuit against JCPenney Corporation, Inc. (JCPenney), alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS Section115/1, et seq., and Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) regulations. Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class consisting of former JCPenney part-time non-management associates (PTNMA), claim that they did not receive vacations benefits earned pursuant to JCPenney's "My Time Off" vacation policy (MTO vacation policy). From November 17, 2005 to June 28, 2009, Garcia worked for JCPenney in Illinois as a part-time non-management associate. During her entire 188 weeks of employment she worked 3,796.7 hours and averaged 20.2 hours per week. Garcia did not receive any vacation benefits under the MTO vacation policy. From November 26, 2007 until October 3, 2010, Rednour worked for JCPenney in Illinois as a part-time non-management associate. Rednour averaged 29.47 hours per week during the first 48 weeks of her employment and received the MTO vacation days she accrued during that time period on a pro rata basis on the first day of each month during her second year of employment. Rednour alleged that she averaged more than 25 hours per week during the first 48 weeks of her second year of employment in 2009 as calculated by JCPenney. Rednour did not receive the MTO benefits she accrued in 2009 that were due in November and December 2010 because her employment terminated on October 30, 2010. Rednour also claims she did not receive any MTO benefits for the hours she worked during the period between January 1, 2010 and October 30, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court denied because plaintiffs' motion for class certification was not based on an action pending in the district and the proposed class definition suffered from a number of deficiencies. Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (TAC) in the district alleging a violation of the IWPCA by JCPenney. The TAC contains a proposed class of all former PTMNAs employed by JC Penney in Illinois and terminated between January 1, 2004 through the date of entry of an order certifying the instant action as a class action. Plaintiffs moved for class certification. Judge Gottschall this time granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs' IWPCA claims are certified as a class action. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the names, dates of employment, and other pertinent information for all persons in the class defined by plaintiffs. The parties are also ordered to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable notice that is to be submitted to the court on or before April 5, 2016. The matter is set for status on April 6, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. A copy of Judge Gottschall's memorandum opinion and order dated March 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/KVXLC6from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Sheldon A Ostroff, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON A. OSTROFF 1441 State St. San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-544-0881 - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W Washington St #1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-419-1008 - and - James C Kostas, Esq. HUFFMAN & KOSTAS 1441 State St. San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-544-0880 J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine Anne Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Andrew George Pappas -- apappas@gibsondunn.com -- Karl G. Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- Olivia A Adendorff -- oadendorff@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP JP SPORTS COLLECTIBLES: "Davis" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JP Sports Collectibles Inc., John E. Peery and Jolean Peery, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00154-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., February 23, 2016), seeks minimum wages, overtime premium, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and pre- judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked in the Defendants' Florida store as a team leader, cashier, sales floor, stocker, packing and shipping and customer service attendant and was paid below the mandatory minimum wage rate and was not compensated for hours in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A. 4423 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Tel: (239) 549-6689 Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com KIMBERLY CLARK: Judge Narrows Claims in Flushable Wipes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich of the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment in the case DENNIS PATRICK SWEENEY, JR., On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated and HEATHER RENEE COPHER-SWEENEY, On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, WAL-MART STORES, INC., and ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:14-cv-3201-T-17EAJ (M.D. Fla.) Plaintiffs commenced an action by filing a class action complaint against Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Rockline Industries, Inc. on December 24, 2014. On March 26 and 30, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 15, 2015, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint on October 9, 2015. The amended complaint consists of: Count I -- Violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (FDUTPA); Count II -- Breach of Express Warranty; Count III -- Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Count IV -- Negligence; Count V -- Negligent Misrepresentation; Count VI -- Negligent Failure to Warn; Count VII -- Strict Liability Failure to Warn; and Count VIII -- Unjust Enrichment. In addition, the plaintiffs seek class action certification on behalf of all Florida residents who purchased Cottonelle and Equate brand flushable wipes between December 24, 2010 and the present, as well as sub-class certification for all similarly situated persons who have suffered damages or paid costs to repair clogs, blockages, or other adverse plumbing consequences to their on-site plumbing or wastewater conveyance and treatment system(s). Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed a joint motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, and a motion to strike class allegations. Rockline Industries, Inc. also filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative motion for summary judgment and motion to strike class allegations together with Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Through the motions, the defendants primarily assert that the first amended complaint should be dismissed, and/or that summary judgment should be granted in their favor, due to the fact that (i) the plaintiffs' lack standing to assert a price premium theory of damages under FDUTPA, and (ii) the record does not contain sufficient evidence that either defendant caused the plaintiffs' plumbing damages. In addition, the defendants ask the court to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations due to an inability to establish, among other things, predominance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). Judge Kovachevich granted, in part, and denied, in part, defendants' motions. Summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendants on count I of the first amended complaint, and denied without prejudice as to Counts II through VIII. The defendants are directed to answer the first amended complaint within 21 days from entry of the order. A copy of Judge Kovachevich's order dated February 22, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/8SCTWkfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony Garcia -- Anthony@aglawinc.com -- at AG Law, Inc.; Christopher D. Boutwell -- chris.boutwell@beasleyallen.com -- J. Ryan Kral -- ryan.kral@beasleyallen.com -- Rhon E. Jones -- rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com -- at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, PC Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory W. Kehoe -- kehoeg@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig, P.A.; Kara L. McCall -- kmccall@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin, LLP Rockline Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by -- Douglas B. Brown -- dbrown@rumberger.com -- J. Richard Caldwell, Jr. -- dcaldwell@rumberger.com -- Jessica Aileen Tetrick -- jtetrick@rumberger.com -- at Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA KING OF DIAMONDS: "Curtis" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Kiara Curtis, Plaintiff, v. AK "N" ELI, LLC d/b/a King Of Diamonds, a Florida limited liability company, Kodrenyc, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; Movement Events LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Elliot Kunstlinger, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20682-MGC (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime pay, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201-219. King of Diamonds is a lounge and adult entertainment club located in Miami where Plaintiff works as a waitress. She claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation. Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. Ria N. Chattergoon, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com ria@saenzanderson.com KRAFT HEINZ: Sued Over Misleading Cheese Product Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Cook County woman is suing Kraft Heinz, Target, and SuperValu, alleging they misleadingly advertise their grated Parmesan and Romano cheese products. Ann Yankee of Cook County, individually and for all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit March 4 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Target Corporation and SuperValu, alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. The suit alleges the defendants advertise their respective grated Parmesan and Romano cheese products are 100 percent cheese. However, the lawsuit states, these cheese products contain cellulose, an ingredient derived from wood fiber and the Target product also contains corn starch. Yankee and others in the class seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement, attorney fees and other costs of the suit, plus a jury trial. They are represented by attorneys Carol V. Gilden -- cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- and Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Chicago and Washington, D.C., Lori G. Feldman, Courtney E. Maccarone, and Andrea Clisura of Levi & Korsinsky in New York, and Janine L. Pollack of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case number 1:16-CV-02873 LUNERA LIGHTING: Recalls LED Lamps Due to Electric Shock Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 27, 2016 Posting date: January 27, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard, Electrical Hazard, Burn Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56838 This recall involves Lunera 13 watt Helen GX23 LED lamps with date codes ranging from 1525 to 1552. The dimmable lamps are white and measure 6 inches long by 1.25 inches wide by 0.75 inches thick. The Lunera logo is printed on the front on the lamp at one end. Model numbers HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-2700-G3, HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3000- G3, HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3500-G3 and HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-4000-G3 appears on the back of the connector. The date code is stamped on the bottom of the connector. The following model numbers and UPC Codes are affected by this recall: Model Number UPC ------------ --- HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-2700-G3 853483006003 HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3000-G3 853483006013 HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3500-G3 853483006027 HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-4000-G3 853483006034 The lamps can overheat causing the lens to dislodge, posing fire, burn and electric shock hazards. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these lamps. Lunera Lighting, Inc. has received 11 reports of lamps failing with an audible pop, followed by a foul odor, in some cases causing the lens of the lamp to dislodge. No injuries or property damage have been reported. Approximately 1,000 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 60,000 units were distributed in the United States. The recalled Lamps were sold in December 2015. Manufactured in China. Distributor: Lunera Lighting, Inc., Santa Clara California UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Lamps. For more information, consumers may contact Lunera Lighting, Inc. toll free at 1-855-637-3089 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST, Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit the company's website and click on "Recall" for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/1rs4Ku MANASSEH JORDAN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Clarke" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Clarke and Ruth Maki, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Yakim Manasseh Jordan, Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Inc., and Prophet Manasseh Products, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01859-VEC (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. The Defendants operate a religious organization with its plaice of business located at PO Box 3320, New York, NY 10163. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua David Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Fried Fish Balls Due to Egg --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 29, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Mannarich Food Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10359 Mannarich Food Inc. is recalling Mannarich Food brand Fried Fish Balls from the marketplace because it contains egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product ----- ---------- --- Mannarich Fried Fish 240 g AL 15 2017 0 68636 03052 5 Food Balls Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/lKh7Y1 MASTERCARD: Two Florida Stores File Class Action Amid EMV Delay --------------------------------------------------------------- CBSNews reports that two small Florida stores filed a lawsuit seeking class action status, saying their bill for fraudulent transactions has increased perhaps 20-fold since the October deadline and the EMV delay -- playing out in smaller stores across the country -- is costing them big money. The lawsuit names payment networks like Visa and Mastercard, along with large payment processing firms. Both Visa and Mastercard said they were reviewing the claims in the lawsuit. It turns out that getting new hardware into stores was just the first step in the conversion process, and in many cases, the easier step. New software comes next, and that's been causing holdups, experts said. "Just because you see an EMV slot on a terminal, doesn't mean it works," said Michael Moeser, director of payments at Javelin Strategy and Research. "Getting the terminal to accept EMV cards is a two-part process. First, the merchant either needs to load newly developed software or integrate new software from a third party into its back office systems to allow the terminal to accept EMV. Second, then the new terminals and the merchant need to undergo a certification process with each of the card networks, typically done in combination with its merchant acquiring bank. The certification queue is currently very long as you can imagine that there are a number of merchants seeking to roll out EMV at the same time." While that delay is annoying to shoppers -- "what do I do, swipe or insert?" -- some merchants say it's killing business. According to the merchant lawsuit, Milam's Market and Grove Liquors in Florida faced 88 chargebacks for fraudulent transactions totaling $9,200 from MasterCard and Visa since the Oct. 1 liability shift, plus $5 chargeback fees for each item. During the same span last year, the firms faced only four chargebacks, the lawsuit said. The stores say they purchased EMV hardware long ago, and are simply waiting for their terminals to be certified. The lawsuit says the stores have been told the queue for certification is so long they have no idea when it might come. "Tellingly, nothing Milam's Market could have done -- short of making the business-crippling decision to stop accepting Visa cards -- could have prevented this outcome," the lawsuit says. "Class members such as the plaintiffs here, could not timely comply with the standard, no matter what they did, because the Defendants refused to, or were unable to, 'certify' the new equipment by the deadline -- or, indeed, the 'certification' process would take years after the . . . Liability Shift was imposed." The debit sticking point Shifting the way America uses plastic was bound to encounter snafus, but Randy Vanderhoof, EMV Migration Chairman, said the American payment market faced particular challenges because of the way debit cards are processed. Federal law designed to promote competition in debit card processing requires that merchants have a choice of networks for processing payments, but that made writing software for EMV debit cards much more complex. "We have a regulatory environment which requires that every card issued has to support at least two unrelated payment networks for processing," he said. "So software and certification testing on debit was more complicated and later to arrive." Since the specifications for EMV debit card processing came late in the game, some in the payment industry decided to delay their conversion work. Otherwise, stores and processors would have found themselves supporting EMV for credit cards, but magnetic stripes for debit cards, potentially frustrating consumers and causing two hardware and software conversions. "That is not an ideal consumer experience," Mr. Vanderhoof said. "You could have the same customer using debit in one transaction (and swiping) and then credit in another (and inserting a chip card). You can start to appreciate it is not a simple thing." The merchant lawsuit makes this point too, quoting Terry Crowley, CEO of TranSend, which makes EMV software. He says that writing code to make the terminals work has become infinitely more complex in recent years. According to the lawsuit: "Crowley said that while software code for card-accepting devices was historically simple enough to be written on the back of a business card. 'Now with EMV, that same software wraps around the walls of a room three times . . . hundreds of thousands of lines of code.' With the Liability Shift deadline having passed, Crowley says, suddenly there is a 'fire drill' to replace all of this simple software, compounded by the facts that the EMV code is hard to write, harder to certify and that few EMV software developers understand the U.S. market." Mobile in the mix Complicating matters more, the switch to chip cards is hardly the only change happening in the way consumers pay for things at checkout. Stores are trying to be ready to accept mobile payments, like Apple Pay or Samsung Pay, also. "A number of merchants have decided to rollout other payments technologies at the same time of an EMV rollout which creates a more complex -- time consuming -- deployment," Mr. Moeser said. Mr. Vanderhoof is optimistic that the problem is temporary, and the payment industry will work through the backlog in fairly short order. The EMV Migration Forum believes 50 percent of terminals will be enabled by the end of this year, and 90 percent by the end of 2017. But for now, many merchants are blaming the banking industry -- and the Florida store lawsuit accuses banks of knowingly conspiring to hand them the bill for fraud. "What defendants knew, but Milam's Market, Grove Liquors and the rest of the Class did not and could not know, was that purchasing new (point of sale) equipment and training their staff was not going to be enough," the lawsuit says. "Requiring working EMV hardware and software by the Oct. 1 deadline were conditions, it would turn out, which were impossible for the Class members to meet and which the Networks, the Issuing Banks and (industry) knew were impossible to meet." Consumers generally aren't held liable for unauthorized charges, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't monitor your financial accounts regularly for fraud. You can also monitor your credit if you have reason to believe your personal information was compromised alongside your payment information. A sudden drop in credit scores can be a sign identity theft is occurring. MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Bars Late-Filed Seafood Claim ------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in the appealed case entitled In Re: DEEPWATER HORIZON. LAKE EUGENIE LAND; DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. BP EXPLORATION; PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, v. JOHNNY SEXTON, Claimant-Appellant. Johnny Sexton worked as a deckhand on a fishing vessel out of Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. He hired a law firm to file a Seafood Claim on his behalf. The Seafood Compensation Fund is a $2.3 billion fund intended to compensate fishermen, crew, and other seafood industry participants for any decline in revenue they suffered as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The settlement agreement set a much earlier bar date for claims on the Seafood Compensation Fund as opposed to other types of claims. The settlement agreement specified what needed to be filed for a Seafood Claim to be processed. These included a sworn claim form and documentation to support the claimant's past income and availability for employment during the months of the oil spill. Sexton's Seafood Claim filing was handled by a legal assistant at the firm. The day before the bar date, the legal assistant filed a registration form and certain supporting documentation for Sexton. The legal assistant did not file a sworn claim form for Sexton, and later explained that he did not realize he needed to. Two months after the January 2013 bar date, when the legal assistant's error was discovered, Sexton's law firm reached out to the claims administrator to explain the error and request an extension. The claims administrator announced a policy for dealing with late-filed Seafood Claims or the Untimely Seafood Claims Procedure. The policy concluded that the bar for excusing a claimant's or claimant's counsel's neglect will necessarily be high. Pursuant to the policy, the program denied the law firm's request for an extension on Sexton's Seafood Claim. The law firm sought reconsideration within the program. When that was unsuccessful, the law firm filed a motion for relief with the district court. The motion was styled as a motion for extension, but both parties have treated it as a motion for discretionary review under Paragraph 6.6 of the Settlement Agreement. The district court summarily denied the motion without responsive briefing or a hearing. Sexton appealed, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to provide the extension that the program and the district court did not. He faults the program and the district court for not properly applying the excusable neglect standard in his case and not treating the filing of his registration form and supporting documents as the filing of a timely claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion. A copy of the Fifth Circuit's judgment dated March 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/BFILVHfrom Leagle.com. The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart and Circuit Judges Priscilla R. Owen and Gregg J. Costa. METLIFE INC: Westland Police Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012). Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On September 11, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing all claims under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and dismissing all claims under the Securities Act except for those based on alleged misrepresentations of mortality ratios. Following the court's September 11, 2015 order, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that supplemented the factual allegations of the second amended complaint. The defendants intend to continue to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Birmingham Retirement Suit Remains Pending in Ala. --------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama, filed July 5, 2012). Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On March 31, 2015, a federal court granted plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court. On October 14, 2015, the state court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Owens" Class Action in Ga. ------------------------------------------------------ MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company still defends the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014). MLIC is a defendant in a lawsuit related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as TCA, as a settlement option for death benefits. Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom MLIC established a TCA to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan. The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. The court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Robainas" Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in the case, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), remains pending. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A copy of the dismissal order is available at http://is.gd/odBP43 from Leagle.com. The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Joseph Gennardo, Esq. Sandra Denise Hauser, Esq. Dentons US LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1089 Tel: 212 768 6700 Fax: 212 768 6800 E-mail: Patrick.Gennardo@dentons.com Sandra.Hauser@dentons.com No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. METLIFE INC: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Intoccia" Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in the case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015), remains pending. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities. The Court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the Robainas decision. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. METLIFE INC: Objectors Appeal Settlement Order in "Fauley" ---------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that objectors have appealed the approval order of the settlement in the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued a final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. Objectors to the settlement have appealed the approval order. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Voshall" Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said it intends to defend against the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), according to MetLife's Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Martin" Case in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend against the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Lau" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend against the case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015). This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable value option to another investment option, the procedures followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. MFA INCORPORATED: Recalls Rabbit Feed Due to Illness Risk --------------------------------------------------------- MFA Incorporated announced the recall of bagged and bulk MFA 16% and 17% rabbit feed. The product was distributed to MFA retail stores in southwest Missouri. MFA Incorporated became aware of a potential problem with the feed after a consumer complaint of animal illness and deaths. Investigation into the complaint revealed three lots that tested high for salt. Symptoms of excess salt intake in rabbits include but are not limited to depressed feed intake, weakness and increased thirst. If your animals show these symptoms, contact your MFA feed representative. Specifically, three lot numbers tested for excess salt: lots #214865, #216032 and #217178. Lot numbers appear on the feed tag which is attached to the bags. Because MFA is a farmer and rancher-owned cooperative, in an abundance of caution to protect members and their livestock, MFA is recalling those above lot numbers in addition to lot #213802 of bagged MFA 16% rabbit pellets and MFA 17% rabbit pellets lots #213877, #216427 and #217549. MFA customers with rabbit pellets bearing any of the above numbers should return the feed to the store where it was purchased for credit or replacement. In addition, MFA is also recalling bulk rabbit feed delivered from Jan. 15 up to March 1. Customers receiving bulk feed during that timeframe should contact the MFA location at which they purchased the feed for credit or replacement. Bulk feed lot numbers are: 213207, 213898, 214890, 217243, 218665 and 218666. MFA store personnel will follow up with customers who purchased the feed. MFA personnel stress that any individual who has already fed the products should make certain the rabbits have ready access to water in order to flush the salt through their systems. Dr. Alan Wessler, vice president of feed operations and animal health for MFA, said, "Our customers and their animals are priorities at MFA. We are a cooperative built by and for farmers and ranchers. While we identified only three lots of feed, we extended the recall to exert a high degree of caution." MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: Cops' Suit Over Bargaining Deal Remanded --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated and remanded to the Court of Special Appeals the judgment in the case FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, et al. v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al., No. 45, September Term, 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) "The mandate of the Court of Special Appeals was to reverse the Circuit Court judgment. The legal conclusions reached by the appellate court were correct, but its judgment was technically incorrect," said Alan M. Wilner, (Retired, Specially Assigned), who wrote the opinion of the Court. "Counts 1 through 6 sought declaratory judgments, and declaratory judgments were, in fact, issued on those counts. Even though they were legally in error, the correct remedy is not simply to reverse them but to vacate them and remand the case for the entry of proper declaratory judgments. As to Counts 7 through 10, the Circuit Court found wrongdoing on the part of Leggett and Lacefield but denied relief because of its finding of qualified immunity. The denial of relief was correct, but for the wrong reason. We think that a more structured mandate is required." Sections 33-75 through 33-85 of the Montgomery County Code provide for collective bargaining between the county and the certified representative of county police officers below the rank of lieutenant. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) is the certified representative of the county police officers. On January 31, 2011, the Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission, created in 2010 by County Council Resolution to recommend changes that would increase the efficiency of county operations, filed its Final Report which, in Recommendation 21, urged that Section 33-80(a)(7) be amended to make it consistent with the scope of bargaining for firefighters and other county employees. The Commission noted that, in practice, effect bargaining has become the exception that makes most management decisions subject to bargaining and has hampered the ability of the Police Department to issue directives to govern how police officers must operate. It added that FOP has recently delayed the implementation of all directives by refusing to respond to them. Responding to the Commission's recommendation, the County Council President introduced Bill No. 18-11 in June 2011 to amend Section 33-80(a)(7) by limiting "effect bargaining" to the amelioration of the effect on employees when the county's exercise of rights under Section 33-80(b) causes a loss of jobs in the bargaining unit. The bill also deleted the special impasse procedure under Section 33- 81(c) with respect to effect bargaining. The bill was passed by the County Council in July 2011 and was signed by the County Executive on August 1 and the law took effect on October 31, 2011. Bill No. 18-11 was slated to appear on the ballot at the November 6, 2012 general election as Question B, whether the bill should become law. A "yes" answer would sustain the law; a "no" vote would nullify it. Both sides commenced their respective campaigns to capture the hearts and minds of the county voters. The County Executive, Isiah Leggett directed an effort by the County government to encourage county voters to vote "yes" on Question B. The effort was managed in large part by Patrick Lacefield, Director of the County Office of Public Information. Leggett authorized Lacefield to spend up to $200,000 from the funds appropriated by the County Council to his office in furtherance of the effort. Lacefield ultimately spent $122,350, which went for such things as putting ads in buses, displaying posters in county libraries and bumper stickers on county cars, purchasing ads in the local media, producing and distributing flyers and lawn signs, posting a "Vote for Question B" on the county website, including advocacy materials in its electronic newsletter distributed to about 125,000 county residents, mass mailings to more than 163,000 households in the county, employing political and media consultants, and hiring individuals to distribute campaign literature. Leggett enlisted the support of both the Democratic and Republican Central Committees. FOP, which contemporaneously was running a vigorous campaign to defeat the new law, objected to the county's advocacy and, in particular, to the use of county funds and personnel in furtherance of it. FOP complained to the American Civil Liberties Union, the County Inspector General, the State Prosecutor, and the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, and when it received no relief from them, filed a lawsuit on November 5, 2012, one day before the election. The next day, the voters approved Question B, 58 percent voting yes and 42 percent voting no. FOP's complaint was brought both individually and as a class action. The class being Montgomery County police officers below the rank of lieutenant, against the county, Leggett, and Lacefield. As amended, it contained ten counts. Counts 1 through 6 sought declaratory and injunctive relief and sought costs and other unspecified general relief. Counts 7 through 10 sought declaratory relief but money damages as well. After a 10-day bench trial, the circuit court entered a memorandum and order, followed a week later by a series of declaratory judgments. The heart of its decision were declarations by the court that the county, Leggett, and Lacefield had no authority to do what they did and that their conduct violated the State and local laws, as alleged by petitioners. It declared inapplicable the doctrine of government speech, which the county asserted permitted governmental entities to promote or oppose legislative measures, including ballot questions that may affect its operations. Cross appeals ensued and the respondents objected to the declaratory judgments denying the county's authority to advocate for or against ballot issues that may have an impact on the operation of the county government and finding that Leggett and Lacefield violated the various laws in implementing the county's efforts to have the law sustained. They also renewed their defenses of lack of standing and laches. Petitioners were unhappy with the court's finding of immunity on the part of Leggett and Lacefield. FOP was seeking reimbursement for the money it claimed it was required to spend in response to the county's campaign. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court judgments. It affirmed, however, the Circuit Court's rejection of the county's standing and laches defenses. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, while respondents filed a conditional cross-petition seeking review of the rejection of their standing and laches defenses. The Maryland Appeals Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded the case with instructions to reverse the judgment entered by the Circuit Court on all counts. The Appeals Court panel consists of Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera, and Judges Clayton Greene Jr., Sally D. Adkins, Robert N. McDonald, Shirley M. Watts, Irma S. Raker (Retired, Specially Assigned); and Wilner, (Retired, Specially Assigned). A copy of Judge Wilner's opinion dated February 23, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/kRkobWfrom Leagle.com. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Proposes Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that law firm Maurice Blackburn has applied to the federal court for a $6.6 million settlement of a class action against the National Australia Bank (NAB). The settlement stems from federal court proceedings taken against nine Australian banks, including NAB, Commonwealth Bank and Westpac over unfair fees. A High Court decision over action against the ANZ bank is still pending. In November 2014, the federal court approved orders for settlement with the NAB after that bank said it was exploring ways to resolve the matter. "If the settlement is approved by the Federal Court, NAB will make a payment of $6.6 million in settlement of the action," Maurice Blackburn said in a statement on March 18. Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions, Andrew Watson, said the NAB's approach was a sensible way for the bank to resolve the ongoing litigation. "This settlement provides the opportunity for some financial redress for late payment fees on credit cards paid by NAB clients who registered in the class action," Mr. Watson said. In the same statement, NAB group executive governance and reputation Michaela Healey said: "NAB is pleased to have reached agreement on this matter and provide certainty for our customers and shareholders". The Federal Court will allocate a time and date for the hearing of the application for settlement approval. The class action has been supported by litigation funder IMF Bentham. NATIONAL AUTO: Judge Denied Defendants' Bid to Dismiss TCPA Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Anne E. Thompson of the District of New Jersey denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case FREDERICK EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL AUTO DIVISION, L.L.C., ARIEL FREUD, and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civ. No. 15-8714 (D.N.J.). Frederick Evans had received numerous telephone calls to his cellular telephone from defendants National Auto Division, L.L.C. and Ariel Freud using an automatic telephone dialing system in the month of November year 2015. Evans knew that the calls were made using an automatic telephone dialing system based on the calls' frequency and the persistence of the calls, as well as the fact that on many of the calls, there was a brief and unnatural period of silence after Evans answered the call. The calls appeared to be attempts to sell vehicle service contracts or extended warranties on vehicles. Evans did not provide his prior express consent to defendants for the calls, and even after he asked defendants to stop calling him, the calls continued. Consequently, Evans alleges that defendants' behavior violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Evans asserts that defendants have made and continue to make similar calls to thousands of cellular telephones nationwide. Therefore, Evans filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons within the United States who received similar calls from defendant without having provided their prior, express consent. A copy of Judge Thompson's opinion dated March 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/vHvqZwfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiff, represented by JEREMY M. GLAPION -- jmg@glapionlaw.com -- at The Glapion Law Firm Defendants, represented by CRAIG A. OLLENSCHLEGER -- co@olss.com -- JEFFREY M. GARROD -- jmg@olss.com -- at ORLOFF, LOWENBACH, STIFELMAN NATIONAL FOODS: Recalls White Puffs Marshmallow Products -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: National Foods Canada Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10351 Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product ----- ---------- --- Candyland White Puffs 175 g 03 HP 0 870572 007987 Marshmallow NEW FLYER: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 22, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 144 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016031TC ID number: 2016031 Certain buses equipped with a Recaro ERGO-M driver seats may be missing welds on the seat structure. As a result, the seatbelt anchorage assembly could separate from the seat structure in the event of a crash, which would increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect for missing welds and if required replace the J-brackets. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NEW FLYER D40LF 2010 NEW FLYER D40LFR 2010 NEW FLYER XDE40 2010 NEW FLYER D60LFR 2010 NEW FLYER XD40 2011 NEW FLYER XN60 2011 NEW FLYER XE40 2015 NEW FLYER XD60 2014 NEWMAR: Recalls Motorhome 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 25, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Label Units affected: 9 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016034TC ID number: 2016034 Certain Motorhomes may fail to comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120 - Tire Selection and Rims. The certification label may not contain the correct front axle tire pressure information. Incorrect tire pressure could lead to tire failure, resulting in loss of vehicle control increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Manufacturer will mail out revised labels indicating 120 PSI (827 kPa) maximum front axle tire inflation pressure. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NEWMAR DUTCH STAR CLASS A 2016 MOTORHOME NEWMAR VENTANA CLASS A 2016 MOTORHOME NOW HEALTH: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Mislabeling ---------------------------------------------------------- NOW Health Group, Inc. is voluntarily recalling limited quantities of six dietary supplements that are mislabeled due to a printing error from the label supplier. The recall affects approximately 165 total units that were distributed nationally and sold in retail stores and online. No other NOW products are affected or are involved in this recall. Specific products and lots include: --- NOW(R) Elderberry 500mg 60 VegCaps - Product Code 4667, Lot #1966914 (57 units) --- NOW(R) Andrographis Ext 400 mg 90 VegCaps - Product Code 4591, Lot #1966914 (8 units) --- NOW(R) Gingko Biloba 60mg 120 VegCaps - Product Code 4687, Lot #1969778 (77 units) --- NOW(R) Burdock Root 430mg 100 Caps - Product Code 4608, Lot #1969778 (8 units) --- NOW(R) Goldenseal Root 500mg 100 Caps - Product Code 4692, Lot #1961645 (12 units) --- NOW(R) Cranberry Ext Caps 90 VegCaps - Product Code 4632, Lot #1961645 (3 units) Two of the products, Goldenseal Root 500mg 100 caps - Product Code 4692, Lot #1961645 and Cranberry Ext Caps 90 VegCaps - Product Code 4632, Lot #1961645, have undeclared allergens (SOY). People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they believe they have experienced any adverse events related with the use of these products. No other health hazards exist associated with the use of any of the other recalled products. The product code is located on the label and the lot number is located on the bottom of the bottle. The bottle is white plastic with a purple lid and an orange NOW label. A limited number of units were sold between February 2, 2016 and March 11, 2016. Consumers who have purchased these recalled products should stop using the product immediately and return it to place of purchase for a full refund. Receipt is not required for refund. No illnesses have been reported to date. NOW has provided information on this voluntary recall to all its retailers who purchased this product and has encouraged retailers to make every effort to contact their customers to facilitate the return of affected products. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact NOW's Customer Service Department by phone at 888-NOW-FOODS (888-669- 3663) Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Central Time. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/7JExVC PAN ASIA: Recalls Seafood Pancake Products Due to Egg ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 29, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Co. Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10368 Pan Asia Food Co. is recalling Sura brand Seafood Pancake product from the marketplace because it may contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold in Ontario and Quebec and may have been distributed in other provinces or territories. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product ----- ---------- --- Sura Seafood Pancake 453 g All codes 0 87703 15140 6 where egg is not declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/bHnQTb PANASONIC CORPORATION: Recalls Lithium-ion Computer Battery Packs ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Panasonic Corporation of North America, of Newark, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 387 Lithium-ion Computer Battery Packs (in addition, 110 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Conductive foreign material was mixed into the battery cells during manufacturing, posing a risk of fire. This recall involves Panasonic six-cell lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery packs sold in Panasonic CF-S10 Series laptop computers. "Panasonic" and "CF-S10" are on the surface of the laptop on the left side below the keyboard. Battery packs with the following model numbers and production lot numbers are being recalled: Model Numbers Lot Numbers ------------- ----------- CF-VZSU61U BAW, BBX, BC, C1, C2 CF-VZSU61R The model number and lot number are located on the battery pack nameplate. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/dG6KIu The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold at Panasonic dealers from December 2011 through August 2013 for about $2,000 for the laptop. Consumers should immediately stop using the laptop computer with the recalled battery, power off the device, remove the battery pack and contact Panasonic for a free replacement battery pack. PHARMASYSTEMS INC: Recalls Digital Basal Thermometers ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2016 Posting date: February 12, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57120 The product was received from supplier correctly labelled as 16I15. But, on receiving at Pharmasystems warehouse, the "I" in the lot number was misread as "L" in lower case and the master shipping carton and inner storage carton were labelled as 16L15. This wrong lot number was used to enter the product into the system and on customer documents. The actual product and the immediate packaging used to sell the product to consumer were labelled correctly. Affected products A. PharmaSystems Digital Basal Thermometer Lot or serial number: 16I15 Model or catalog number: PS780 Manufacturer: PHARMASYSTEMS INC 151 TELSON ROAD Markham L3R 1E7 Ontario CANADA PIPER JAFFRAY: To Pay $9.8 Million to Settle MDL Action ------------------------------------------------------- Piper Jaffray Companies will be required to pay $9.8 million to settle the Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, it said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Several class action complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class of state, local and municipal government entities in connection with the bidding or sale of municipal investment contracts and municipal derivative products directly from one of the defendants or through a broker, from January 1, 1992, to the present. The complaints, which have been consolidated into a single nationwide class action entitled In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950 (Master Docket No. 08-2516), allege antitrust violations and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the multi-district litigation rules. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified treble damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Several California municipalities also brought separate class action complaints in California federal court, and approximately eighteen California municipalities and two New York municipalities filed individual lawsuits that are not as part of class actions, all of which have since been transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated for pretrial purposes. All three sets of complaints assert similar claims under federal (and for the California and New York plaintiffs, state) antitrust claims. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action and Piper Jaffray entered into a settlement agreement for In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation on February 22, 2016. The settlement is subject to court approval after notice to the class. If approved, Piper Jaffray will be required to pay $9.8 million to settle the MDL class action. Litigation in the separate California and New York cases is ongoing. Piper Jaffray Companies ("Piper Jaffray") is an investment bank and asset management firm, serving the needs of corporations, private equity groups, public entities, non-profit entities and institutional investors in the U.S. and internationally. POLISH TRADE: Recalls Paprykarz Szczecinski Products ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Polish Trade Centre Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10347 Brand Common name Size UPC Code(s) on name ----------- ---- --- product ----- ---------- Losos "Paprykarz 170 g 5 901069 000336 All codes Szczecinski" where wheat is not declared on the label Losos "Paprykarz 180 g 5 901069 001432 All codes Szczecinski" where wheat is not declared on the label Losos "Paprykarz 310 g 5 901069 000404 All codes Szczecinski" where wheat is not declared on the label Losos Spicy Mackerel 180 g 5 901069 001449 All codes Salad where wheat is not declared on the label Losos Sprats in 175 g 5 901069 000756 All codes Tomato Sauce where mustard is not declared on the label Losos Mackerel 175 g 5 901069 000817 All codes Fillets in where mustard Tomato Sauce is not declared on the label POOL CORP: Portions of Expert Opinion Excluded in Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the case entitled IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES MDL No. 2328, (E.D. La.) Pool Corporation, SCP Distributors LLC, and Superior Pool Products (Pool) is the country's largest distributor of products used for the construction and maintenance of swimming pools (Pool Products). Hayward Industries, Inc. (Hayward), Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. (Pentair), and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (Zodiac) are the three largest manufacturers of Pool Products in the United States. The direct-purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs) and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) filed an antitrust case against Pool and the manufacturers. DPPs have filed two consolidated amended complaints, the first on June 29, 2012 and the second on June 21, 2013 each of which defendants moved to dismiss. The Court issued orders on both rounds of motions to dismiss. Following the orders, DPPs were left with the following five claims: (1) a Section 1 claim under the per se rule involving a horizontal agreement between the manufacturer defendants and Pool to fix free freight minimums; (2) three Section 1 claims under the rule of reason involving three separate vertical conspiracies (one between Pool and each Manufacturer Defendant) to exclude Pool's competitors; and (3) a Section 2 attempted monopolization claim against Pool. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on these five claims. In addition, DPPs have moved for class certification. The Court has dismissed DPPs' Section 1 per se claim on summary judgment. DPP presented Dr. Gordon C. Rausser as an expert witness for them. DPPs rely on Dr. Rausser's opinions to support their antitrust claims and their motion for class certification. Defendants Pool Corporation, SCP Distributors LLC, and Superior Pool Products move to exclude the testimony of Dr. Gordon C. Rausser and challenge five aspects of Dr. Rausser's opinion. Judge Vance granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Rausser. The Court excludes Dr. Rausser's opinion about (1) spatial integration, including his cointegration test; and (2) aggregate causation to demonstrate the effect of the alleged vertical conspiracies. A copy of Judge Vance's order and reason dated February 22, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/iQVYyWfrom Leagle.com. Richard C Stanley, Special Master, represented by Richard C. Stanley -- rcs@stanleyreuter.com -- Stanley, Reuter, Ross, Thornton & Alford, LLC Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman -- rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. H. Brill, Law Office of Thomas H. Brill Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Arnold Levin, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Daniel W. Krasner, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, Douglas G. Thompson, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Jay L. Himes, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, pro hac vice, Linda P Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Matthew B. Moreland, Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Ronald J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Russ M. Herman, Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP, Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford & Vincent J. Esades, Heins, Mills & Olson, PLC Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Jay L. Himes, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Ronald J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard LLP & Russ M. Herman, Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP Defendants' Liaison Counsel, Defendant, represented by William Bernard Gaudet, Adams & Reese, LLP Defendants' Lead Counsel, Defendant, represented by David H. Bamberger -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP & Deana L. Cairo -- deana.cairo@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP, pro hac vice Manufacturer Defendants' Liaison Counsel, Defendant, represented by Wayne J. Lee, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC Federal Trade Commission, Movant, represented by Lisa Zeidner Marcus, U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Div PUBLIC STORAGE: "Perez" Sues over Insurance Overcharging -------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Perez, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Public Storage, a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust, Defendants, Case No. BC611584 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, February 24, 2016), seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to disclose its retention of insurance premiums, general, actual and compensatory damages, restitution of all insurance premiums paid, injunctive and declaratory relief, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs resulting from breach of contract and covenant of fair dealing, violation of California Consumer of Legal Remedies, California Civil Code, California Unfair Competition Laws and Business and Professions Code. Public Storage is in the business of renting storage space to consumers throughout California and requires its customers to maintain insurance for the items they store at its facilities. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of overcharging insurance premiums for the items that they place in their storage. The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Audet, Esq. Steven R. Weinmann, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3229 Tel: (415) 568-2555 Fax: (415) 568-2556 Email: waudet@audetlaw.com sweinmann@audetlaw.com RACERMATE INC: Recalls CompuTrainer Blue Flywheels -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with RacerMate Inc., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 25,000 CompuTrainer Blue Flywheels. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The blue flywheel can shatter while in use and throw metal pieces into the air. This poses a risk of injury from impact to the rider and any bystanders. This recall involves blue CompuTrainer Flywheels manufactured before 2008. The CompuTrainer Flywheels are used to make bicycles stationary for indoor training. The blue flywheel is a die casting made of zinc. It measures 4.75 inches in diameter and weighs 1.1 pounds. Flywheels manufactured after 2008 are silver in color, and are not included in this recall. RacerMate has received five reports of flywheels that have shattered, including three reports of injuries, including lacerations and leg bruises. The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A. and sold at RacerMate and bicycle stores nationwide from November 1997 through November 2008 for about $1,500. Consumers should immediately stop using and remove the recalled blue flywheels. Consumers can contact RacerMate for instructions on receiving a free, silver replacement flywheel. SABRE INC: Opinion Shouldn't Be Classified as "Unpublished" ----------------------------------------------------------- Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an opinion out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit about a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case didn't deserve to be classified as "unpublished," a defense attorney says. Unpublished opinions are not unusual in very clear cases when reaching a decision is very easy and there doesn't appear to be much to gain from issuing a lengthy opinion, said Christine M. Reilly, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles and co-chair of its TCPA Compliance and Class Action Defense practice group. Unpublished opinions are not to be cited in other cases. But Ms. Reilly seems some value in the opinion. "I'll be citing it," Ms. Reilly said. The Ninth Circuit handed down its unpublished opinion Feb. 3, affirming a lower court ruling dismissing the class action lawsuit Baird vs Sabre, Inc. "It seems that the Ninth Circuit just didn't consider this to be a difficult, tough or even unclear decision," she said. Despite that, the case does merit a closer look as there are some valuable lessons to be gained in the case, Ms. Reilly said. These include, she says: -- Differences between information and marketing text messages; -- Affirmation that consent to receive text messages from one company extends to the company's contractor; and -- The sobering realization of how little is required to file a putative class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed Feb. 11, 2013 by Shaya Baird, who previously booked flights online for herself and her family on Hawaiian Airlines' website. Prompted by the statement "At least one phone number is required," Ms.Baird entered her cell phone number. A few weeks later, about one month before the flight, Baird received a text message from Sabre, Inc., a global technology company contracting with Hawaiian Airlines to provide flight notification services. The text message asked if she would like notifications about her upcoming Hawaiian Airlines flight and to reply "yes" if she did. Ms. Baird did not respond to the text message on her phone, but she did file a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for Central California alleging that Sabre violated the TCPA when it sent the one unsolicited text message. Ms. Baird's case had a rough time from the start. That summer, the federal judge in the case threw out the lawsuit, saying Ms. Baird failed to show she suffered any economic injury from the text message or that she had standing to bring a California Unfair Competition Law claim. She was, however, given two weeks to amend her complaint, which she did. The case was dismissed early the following year. In its Jan. 28, 2014, order granting Sabre's motion for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for Central California agreed with Sabre's argument that Baird consented to receive the text message. Sabre argued Baird did that by voluntarily providing her cell phone number during her online reservation with Hawaiian Airlines. This was true, Sabre argued, despite the fact she'd provided her cell phone number to Hawaiian Airlines, not to Sabre. Baird then appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling that dismissed class action lawsuit, agreeing that the defendant was not liable under the statute because Baird had provided consent to be contacted. To reach that affirmation, the court relied upon the Federal Communications Commission's 1992 Order that prescribed TCPA regulations. Those regulations dictate that anyone who knowingly releases their phone numbers also provides their consent to be called at that number unless they give instructions otherwise. "Baird expressly consented to the text message in question when she provided Hawaiian Airlines with her cellphone number," the ruling said. "Baird knowingly released her phone number to Hawaiian Airlines while making a flight reservation. She did not provide any 'instructions to the contrary' indicating that she did not 'wish to be reached' at that number." Ms. Baird's next stop, if she chooses to appeal, would be the U.S. Supreme Court, but that isn't likely, Ms. Reilly said. Even if Baird were to appeal, it's unlikely the high court would hear the case because it doesn't call into question any constitutional or legally conflicting questions, Ms. Reilly said. However, examining the case could bring up some interesting observations in terms of more solidly defining consent when it comes to text messages. In addition to TCPA regulation, the Ninth Circuit has had only two cases to refer to in such matters. The first was the 2009 Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc, mentioned in the unpublished opinion. In that case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that consenting to receive calls from one business does not constitute consent to receive calls from a different business. That would seem to support Baird, but the unpublished opinion indicates the court didn't see it that way. "A similar situation exists here," the unpublished opinion said. "Baird provided her phone number to Hawaiian Airlines, but was contacted by Sabre. However, unlike in Satterfield, Sabre is a vendor for Hawaiian Airlines and contacted Baird regarding her reservation. "The district court made no distinction between Sabre and Hawaiian Airlines because of the relationship between the companies, and Baird does not make any argument based on this distinction." The other case, Emanuel v. The Los Angeles Lakers, Inc., was another putative class action lawsuit. This case was brought by a ticket holder who accused the basketball franchise of sending him unsolicited text messages. That case ended when the plaintiff withdrew his own appeal. The Baird case does point out two lessons, Ms. Reilly said. The first is that the text messages in question contained information and were not for marketing purposed. "The ruling would have been very different if the messages had been marketing in nature," she said. The second lesson is that consent to receive text messages is not only to the first business but also extends to whoever the business contracts with to handle those text messages. "I think that definitely provides some comfort for defendants," Ms. Reilly said. A final lesson in this case is that it points out how easy it is to file a class action lawsuit, Ms. Reilly said. "This was, literally, over one text message," she said. "She filed a class action lawsuit over one text message. It takes only one text message launch a class action complaint in this country." SEKISUI DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Acetaminophen L3K ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 25, 2016 Posting date: February 8, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57012 In Sept 2015, Sekisui began receiving complaints of crystal formation on R2 when left on-board an automated analyzer for an extended period. Sekisui has confirmed through testing that the chromophore used in the R2 will come out of solution and form a crystal when left on-board and exposed to air. Affected products A. Acetaminophen L3K Lot or serial number: 47649 47650 47662 47663 47694 47695 48253 48294 48385 48386 Model or catalog number: 506-10 506-30 Manufacturer: Sekisui Diagnostics P.E.I. Inc. 70 Watts Avenue Charlottetown C1E 2B9 Prince Edward Island CANADA SKYY PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Repair Habitability Defects ----------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney White, Anthea Gooden, Deborah Adams and Tawana Robinson v. Skyy Properties, LLC, Ernie Byal and Does 1-30, Case No. RG16807110 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 10, 2016), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to subject premises. The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business in the County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com SORIN GROUP: Recalls Dual Stage Venous Return Cannula ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 25, 2016 Posting date: February 22, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57204 Sorin Group USA became aware that the instructions for use (IFU) included with the low profile, One Piece Dual Stage Venous Return Cannula was for another part number. The IFU included with the parts was for an Arterial Cannulae (catalogue number RA-XXXX). This issue affects this device model and lot only. Affected products DUAL STAGE VENOUS RETURN CANNULA Lot or serial number: 1529300018 Model or catalog number: LRD-61046 Manufacturer: Sorin Group USA Inc. 14401 W. 65TH WAY ARVADA 80004 Colorado UNITED STATES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOLAR: Faces "Buckman" Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Southern California Solar Inc. The case is captioned Joshua Buckman, individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Southern California Solar Inc., Case No. 56-2016-00479241-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct., March 13, 2016). Southern California Solar Inc. is a producer of solar technologies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542 2135 Facsimile: (213) 542 2101 E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com SPOKEO INC: Article III Standing at Issue in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that if the U.S. Supreme Court decides in the coming weeks -- even in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's death -- to issue an opinion ruling certain plaintiffs who can't show actual damages or some type of concrete harm do not have a legal right to sue, plaintiffs' lawyers could be in for a challenge. Noah Axler, a partner at the Donovan Axler law firm in Philadelphia, says Spokeo v. Robins, along with two other class action cases, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez and Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, are "highly relevant" to plaintiffs and class action attorneys such as himself. "In Spokeo, if the court were to decide that a plaintiff seeking solely statutory damages for violation of a federal statute can't bring a case because he or she doesn't have Article III standing, that would impact a lot of class actions," said Mr. Axler, who has represented clients in numerous class actions, as well as contract, patent and trademark cases. At issue in Spokeo is whether a person may bring a lawsuit when a company violates a federal privacy law. In order to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts under Article III, a plaintiff must have "standing," or a legal right, to sue. The petitioner, Spokeo Inc., argues the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff, Thomas Robins of Virginia, did not prove that the publication of inaccurate personal information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act was a concrete "injury" under Article III. Spokeo -- a "people search engine," so to speak -- discloses to the public personally identifiable information, including contact information, marital status, age, occupation and economic health. Some of this information is subject to protection under federal privacy laws. Mr. Robins sued Spokeo for willful violations of the FCRA, charging that the website disclosed inaccurate information about him that harmed his employment prospects and violated his rights under the federal law. Spokeo sought to dismiss the case, claiming there was no "injury- in-fact." But a federal district court rejected that argument, finding the allegation of the FCRA violation was sufficient for the case to go forward. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, again denying Spokeo's motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, the Ninth Circuit found that Congress' "creation of a private cause of action to enforce a statutory provision implies that Congress intended the enforceable provision to create a statutory right." "If the [Supreme Court] rules for the plaintiff in Spokeo, then it will likely preserve the status quo," Mr. Axler said. "But a decision the other way could curtail class actions seeking statutory damages." Jim Sturdevant, another plaintiffs attorney, says it's difficult to predict exactly how the court will rule in the case. Based on the oral arguments held in November, he says the court seemed fairly divided on the question. "I would probably say it was a 5-4 split, with Justice Scalia in the majority," said Mr. Sturdevant, who has his own law firm in San Francisco. "But given his death, I would expect it to be affirmed 4-4 with a brief order, having the case returned to the circuit from where it came." Justice Scalia, 79, was found dead of natural causes at a luxury hunting resort in West Texas Feb. 13. The justice served on the high court for nearly 30 years. Justice Scalia's death leaves eight justices on the court, split 4-4 between being fairly conservative and fairly liberal, amid a presidential election year. President Barack Obama said he plans to nominate Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the high court, despite the U.S. Senate's continued resistance. All 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee recently signed a letter, refusing to hold hearings on any replacement until a new president is inaugurated. "Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a floor speech. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it." Given the standoff, cases that were not decided before Scalia's death could go one of two ways: be decided by the remaining justices or be held for rehearing after a new justice is confirmed. In the first scenario, if the court issues a 4-4 ruling, the court will not publish a written opinion; instead, the ruling of the lower court will be upheld and the Supreme Court's decision will have no precedential effect. Wystan Ackerman, a partner at the Hartford, Conn., office of Robinson+Cole, says he expects the court will try to find a way to resolve Spokeo, pointing to the impasse over Scalia's replacement. "It could be the court wants to get its own business done without holding a bunch of cases," said Mr. Ackerman, who chairs the firm's class action team and writes the blog Class Actions Insider. While a 4-4 deadlock is a real possibility, he argues that a majority ruling still is achievable. "My guess is that, if Justice Scalia's vote was decisive, the remaining justices might now find their way to a majority in favor of a narrower decision that corrects what they seemed to pretty much all think was wrong about the Ninth Circuit's opinion, while resolving this case on narrow grounds, leaving some issues for another day," he said. "If that happens, it could be a small victory for class action defendants." Indeed, some legal observers believe it's unlikely that the majority of justices -- even without Justice Scalia -- will issue a ruling that plaintiffs like Robins only have to allege a violation of a right created by a statute, without any need to show a concrete harm from the violation. Jason Johnston, a law professor at the University of Virginia who teaches courses on contracts, economic regulation and torts, among others, says the Supreme Court, itself, has "clearly said" in many cases that a plaintiff must allege he or she has suffered injury to have constitutional standing to bring a lawsuit. "In the FCRA expiration date cases, plaintiffs could not allege harm, and these cases would be unconstitutional to bring, unless the Supreme Court holds that Congress can just create standing by creating a cause of action for statutory damages," Mr. Johnston said. "If the court were to say this -- that Congress can, in effect, create standing this way -- then all of these no-harm lawsuits under statutory damage statutes could continue. "In my view, this would be a very bad thing, because all these cases do is transfer money to class counsel -- there is no harm to compensate for, no future harm to deter, and hardly any actual plaintiffs get any payments at all." Mr. Johnston says before Justice Scalia's death, such a "bad outcome" was unlikely. "Were he alive, I believe the court would hold that even in cases brought under statutes that award statutory damages with no proof of harm, the plaintiff still has to allege that he or she suffered harm," he said. "Now, I think that a 4-4 vote is more likely." Mr. Johnston argues that such a decision would "perpetuate" the filing in federal court of class actions that "do no social good" and serve only to enrich class counsel. SPOTIFY: Law Firm Points Out Cons of Settlement in FAQ Sheet ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm handling Cracker frontman David Lowery's class action suit against Spotify has offered up an FAQ for songwriters and publishers ahead of an imminent settlement between the streaming service and the National Music Publishers Association, or NMPA. The rub? Little is known about the proposed deal, from its dollar amount to how it would be processed, so think hard -- and call your legal rep, obviously -- before opting in. First, a little background on the NMPA settlement. As previously reported, the deal is said to involve a payment of $5 million in damages as well as mechanical royalties owed to publishers, smaller companies and songwriters who publish their own work. Sources have told Billboard that a database would be established as publishers file their royalty claims and that after publishers match their claims against play counts, the NMPA would dole out payment to publishers according to that accounting. Any money left over after those claims, with the addition of the $5 million penalty, would then be distributed to publishers according to market share. Alternately, the $150 million class-action brought by Lowery, one of the loudest voices in the effort to ensure streaming services pay mechanical royalties accurately, is still in the proposal stage. In a few weeks a judge will decide whether to consolidate Lowery's suit with a second class-action against Spotify, filed by singer-songwriter Melissa Ferrick. Back to the FAQ sheet, written by Mona Hanna -- mhanna@mrllp.com - - of Michelman & Robinson, LLP. In it, Hanna addresses common questions about the NMPA settlement and its "potential ramifications" as it also pertains to the class-action suit. She points out that settlement is being hammered out in secret and that the NMPA's role is to shepherd it through -- and then recommend it to its members. Those who sign on are being asked to trust the brokers without following along with the details as they unfold. If that doesn't sound good to you, there's this class- action suit Hanna wants to tell you about. "It is impossible to determine the true benefit to songwriters because the settlement negotiations between NMPA and Spotify have been conducted without Court oversight," Ms. Hanna writes. "In stark contrast, a class action settlement requires the class counsel -- the attorneys representing the songwriters -- to submit the settlement terms to a Court and provide the Court with evidence that the settlement was reached in an arms-length transaction." Ms. Hanna also warns that if publishers/songwriters accept the NMPA settlement, they'll likely be barred from being a part of this (and possibly future) class action against Spotify. "If you accept the settlement that NMPA has negotiated, you will not be able to recover any monetary sum from the $150 Million class action suit against Spotify," she notes. "In addition, you will likely be required to waive any claims you have, or will have, against Spotify, eliminating your ability to sue them in the future." As to whether the Spotify settlement is similar to the NMPA- brokered deal with YouTube in 2011, Ms. Hanna points out that that was part of a class action and approved by an independent court. SRAM LLC: Recalls Zipp(R) Bicycle Quick Releases ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with SRAM LLC, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 6,400 Zipp(R) bicycle quick releases. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The quick releases can fail to engage in the closed position, posing crash and injury hazards to the rider. This recalls involves SRAM's Zipp stainless steel or titanium quick releases. They were sold as aftermarket components or as part of the 202 DB V2, 303 DB V2, 404 Firestrike V2, 202 Firecrest V3, 303 Firecrest V3, 404 Firecrest V3, 808 Firecrest V3 or 808 NSW wheel sets. The quick release has a curved, black lever. Zipp appears on the lever. Only quick releases without a marking at the center of the underside of the lever, below the Zipp logo are included on this recall. The firm has received three incident reports of the quick release failing. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/cIeNy3 The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Specialty bicycle stores nationwide from March 2015 through December 2015 for about $47 for the stainless steel quick release and about $84 for the titanium quick release. Wheel sets equipped with the quick releases were sold for between $1,000 and $3,600. Consumers should immediately stop using any bicycles equipped with the recalled quick releases and contact SRAM or their local bicycle dealer for a free replacement quick release. SRAM LLC: Recalls Zipp 88 Aluminum Front Hubs Due to Crash Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with SRAM LLC, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 54,000 Zipp 88 aluminum front hubs (In addition, about 2,900 were sold in Canada) . Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The hub flanges on the front hubs can fail, posing a crash and injury hazard. This recall includes SRAM's Zipp bicycle wheel hubs. The model names of the affected hubs are ZIPP 88v6, 88v7 and 88v8. The Z logo is printed on the hub. The wheel hubs come in black, silver and falcon grey. The diameter of the clinch nut is approximately 1.46 inches. Some of the hubs were sold as part of wheel sets installed on new bicycles. SRAM will post a list of affected bicycle brands and models on its website at www.sram.com. SRAM has received one report in the U.S. of hub flange failure that could have led to wheel collapse. No injuries have been reported in the U.S. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/YDhnDM The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and Spain and sold at Speciality bicycle stores nationwide from May 2010 through January 2015. The front hubs sold for about $215. Complete front wheels with the hubs sold for between $1,035 and $1,325. The front wheel was also sold as a wheel set with a rear wheel for between $2,300 and $2,950. Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the recalled front hubs and contact SRAM or local bicycle dealer for a free replacement hub. STARBUCKS COFFEE: Faces Class Action Over Cup Filling Issue ----------------------------------------------------------- CBSLA.com reports that two Californians have filed suit against Starbucks Corp. alleging the coffee giant underfills its lattes and therefore saved "countless of millions of dollars in the cost of goods sold," according to the complaint. Siera Strumlauf of San Francisco and Benjamin Robles of Carlsbad filed the proposed class-action in California federal court on March 16. Both allege they purchased Grande-size lattes, believing such would contain 16 fluid ounces based on Starbucks' menu. Yet, according to the complaint, "Starbucks lattes are uniformly underfilled pursuant to a standardized recipe." The suit claims that four steps go into making a Starbucks latte of which three leave no discretion to the barista to individually determine the amount of fluid or flavoring that's used. The final step, the suit alleges, involves the barista pouring steamed milk into a serving cup with espresso based on a recipe, then topping the beverage with a quarter-inch of milk foam "leaving at least (a quarter-inch) of space below the rim of the serving cup." The complaint states attorneys for the plaintiffs purchased and measured Starbucks lattes at stores and in several states and found that "each latte was underfilled by approximately 25 percent." "By underfilling its lattes, thereby shortchanging its customers, Starbucks has saved countless millions of dollars in the cost of goods sold and was unjustly enriched," the suit claims. In a statement issued to CBS Los Angeles, Starbucks said it was aware of the plaintiffs' claims. "We are aware of the plaintiffs' claims, which we fully believe to be without merit," a Starbucks spokesperson said. "We are proud to serve our customers high-quality, handcrafted and customized beverages, and we inform customers of the likelihood of variations." The suit sets forth multiple counts, including fraud, breach of express warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The plaintiffs are now seeking to have their class certified, among other relief. STONE & WOOD DESIGN: "Carrasquel" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Dima De Jesus Ronda Carrasquel and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, v. Stone & Wood Design, Inc., and Manuel E. Miguel, Defendants seeks recovery of overtime wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a granite installer from June 10, 2014, through February 8, 2016, and claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. Stone & Wood Design Inc. is an interior designer in Hialeah, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM STUDENT TRANSPORTATION: School Bus Drivers File Wage Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a group of school bus drivers has delivered a potential class action lawsuit to another school bus company, claiming the provider of transportation services to school students in Chicago's suburbs has stiffed them on wages and overtime, by allegedly paying them only for the time they were on their routes, and not for the 15-45 minutes of work they claim they did each day before and after. On March 17, a group of nine school bus drivers filed a complaint in Chicago federal court against Student Transportation of America (STA), identified as its Illinois registered corporate entity, Positive Connections Inc., which the complaint said operates two school bus yards in suburban Markham. STA is a local affiliate of Wall, N.J.-based Student Transportation Inc. Named plaintiffs in the action include Sophia Bailey and Oscar Davis, both of South Holland; Ca Shae Hayes, of Glenwood; Gloria Jackson, of Calumet City; Erica McGriff, of Country Club Hills; Rhonda O'Connor, of Lansing; Patricia Price, of Matteson; Ronald Sweatt, of Park Forest; and Charmaine Reed, of Phoenix, Ill. According to the complaint, they believe their claims could be extended to include a potential class of as many as 300 additional plaintiffs, or more. The complaint said drivers, before 2015, were ordered to complete and submit timesheets to STA showing only "the number of hours (STA) estimated it should have taken the drivers to complete their routes." This, the complaint said, meant drivers' timesheets only included 7.5 hours each day, "regardless of the amount of time . . . actually spent completing (a) route or performing other work." Further, the complaint alleged STA management would "strike out portions of the time sheet," should drivers indicate they worked more than the amount of time the company believed their route should take, "and were not paid for the extra time worked." However, the drivers said they routinely were expected to arrive at the STA yards in Markham and perform such tasks as "starting their bus, making sure it is clean, getting gas and filling out paperwork." They said the company expected them to perform similar tasks upon returning to the bus yards at the end of their routes. And they said STA refused to pay them for the time spent on those tasks, the complaint said. They also specifically alleged the company did not reimburse drivers for cleaning supplies purchased for the buses, or pay them for the time spent "cleaning and maintaining their buses." The complaint estimated, on average, drivers would spend about 15- 45 minutes each day on the pre- and post-route chores. Should drivers be allowed to mark more than 40 hours in a work week on time sheets, the complaint alleged STA, before October 2015, would pay them only their regular hourly wage for any time over 40 hours, and not the time-and-a-half required under wage and hour labor laws. The complaint, for instance, alleged McGriff was paid only regular hourly wages for 52 hours of work,, and not 12 hours of overtime at time-and-a-half. Davis also alleged that, since STA estimated his route should take 48.75 hours to complete one week, he was paid only 48.75 hours at his regular hourly wage rate, and did not receive 8.75 hours of overtime pay. They alleged STA attempted to obscure its practices, in part, by paying workers every two weeks, allowing the company to reflect in some instances that a driver had worked an average of 40 hours per week, even though the driver may have worked more than 40 hours during one of the weeks, and less than 40 hours the following week. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify two classes of additional plaintiffs to include drivers employed by STA who weren't properly paid overtime, and an additional class of drivers who they alleged were not paid for the pre- and post-route work. Plaintiffs said they believed each class likely would include more than 300 people. The plaintiffs have asked for damages including back pay and unpaid overtime dating back to 2013, unspecified "liquidated damages" equal to the amount of unpaid wages and overtime allegedly owed under the complaint, and statutory damages under applicable state and federal law, plus attorney fees. They are represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of Caffarelli & Associates, of Chicago. The STA complaint marked the second such class action lawsuit brought against a school bus company operating in Illinois in recent months. In the fall of 2015, a group of more than five dozen drivers sued First Student, alleging similar violations of federal and state labor laws against that company. That case remains pending in Chicago federal court. In February, however, U.S. District Judge James Zagel dismissed all but one of the counts in that complaint, saying the driver plaintiffs in that case failed to show the bus company did not follow the minimum wage laws by not paying them for work before and after their routes, nor did such policies necessarily violate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Judge Zagel said the plaintiffs in that case could be allowed to try again with new claims under Illinois wage laws, but not their claims for uncompensated regular work time under the federal law. Judge Zagel did not rule on the First Student drivers' claims regarding uncompensated overtime. TACO BELL: Bid to Modify Method to Calculate Damages Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case No. 1:07- cv-01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs alleged that Taco Bell violated California law by failing to provide meal periods before the beginning of the fifth hour of work, failing to provide a second ten minute rest period for employees who worked more than six but less than seven hour, and paid a one half hour meal premium when employees were owed a full hour of meal premium pay. On March 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed a brief in the matter of jury instruction no. 35, seeking to instruct the jury that it may use minimum wage in calculating damages to the class or that plaintiffs may prove damages by just and reasonable inference. Plaintiffs did not raise these issues prior to trial. Plaintiffs argue that the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Taco Bell failed to keep accurate records and therefore the requested instructions should be provided. Magistrate Judge Stanley E. Boone of the Eastern District of California denied plaintiffs' request to modify jury instruction no. 35. A copy of Magistrate Judge Boone's order dated March 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/2a0Z4Yfrom Leagle.com. Sandrika Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jennifer Renee Bagosy -- jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Monica Balderrama -- MBalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- at Initiative Legal Group APC; Stuart Rowe Chandler -- stuart@chandlerlaw.com -- at Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy -- jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC Miriam Leyva, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski - - Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Timothy Donahue -- tdonahue@attorneydonahue.com -- Law Offices Of Timothy Donahue Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Monica Balderrama -- MBalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- Marc Primo Pulisci -- MarcPrimo@InitiativeLegal.com -- at Initiative Legal Group APC Loraine Naranjo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Kenneth Yoon -- at Law Offices Of Kenneth H. Yoon; Peter M. Hart -- hartpeter@msn.com -- at Law Offices of Peter M. Hart; Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- at Diversity Law Group Endang Widjaja, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Jerusalem F. Beligan -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- at Bisnar Chase, LLP Christopher Duggan, Debra Doyle and Hilario Escobar, Plaintiffs, represented byAndrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Joseph Hoff -- Mark Yablonovich -- mark@yablonovichlaw.com -- Patrick Joseph Clifford -- patrick@yablonovichlaw.com -- at Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich Defendants, represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Nora K. Stiles -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- Tracey Adano Kennedy -- tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP TERRAFORM POWER: Four Law firms Mull Securities Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Gatlin, writing for Investors.com, reports that four law firms are investigating whether SunEdison yield company TerraForm Power (TERP) violated securities laws in conjunction with its annual report filing delays. Two say their probes concern the fraud and insider trading sections of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. TerraForm Power is facing a series of potential investor class action lawsuits and could be delisted from the Nasdaq if it doesn't come into compliance. The SunEd yieldco has until May 16 to regain compliance or submit a plan to do so, though it could be granted an extension until Sept. 12. Goldberg Law Firm said it is investigating whether TerraForm Power violated securities rules by issuing "misleading" information to investors and cites "claims of potential misrepresentations" by the company. Its investigation is focusing on Terraform's Feb. 29 announcement that it would delay filing its form 10-K annual report with the SEC. Rosen Law Firm; the Pomerantz law firm; and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman launched TerraForm Power investigations too. On Feb. 29, SunEdison said it needed more time to wrap an audit into its liquidity stance, stemming from allegations from former and current employees of financial misconduct. Early on March 16, the firms again delayed their 10-Ks, but SunEd said it found no "material weaknesses" thus far. TerraForm Power blamed its parent company for the holdup, saying its accounting systems are tied to SunEd's. On this news, TerraForm Power "fell sharply during intraday trading on March 16," Rosen Law Firm said in a press release. "Rosen Law Firm is investigating a potential class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by TerraForm Power investors," the firm wrote. TERU SUSHI: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Chung" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Jiyun Chung v. Teru Sushi, Studio Sushi, Inc., and Does 1- 100, inclusive, Case No. BC611774 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages due, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, and for violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a sushi restaurant located 11940 Ventura Boulevard, Studio City, California 91604. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Kahn, Esq. Jonathan D. Roven, Esq. KAHN ROVEN, LLP 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (213) 738-0708 E-mail: rkahn@kahnroven.com jroven@kahnroven.com TEXAS: Residents Meet to Discuss Potential Class Action v. SRA -------------------------------------------------------------- Haley Bull, writing for KFDM.com, reports that hundreds of residents in Orange and Newton Counties are demanding answers from the Sabine River Authority after a record-breaking water release left the area with catastrophic flooding. The view of devastation, destruction and damage is a scene that's become a grim reality for countless families. On March 17, they met with an Austin based attorney who said he is considering whether to pursue a class action lawsuit. "They put so many people's lives and homes and livestock in jeopardy and they are refusing to take any responsibility for it whatsoever," Linda Villegas said. Her property flooded, as did Floyd Williford's. "Something's wrong for them not to control the water when they knew all this rain was coming," he said. The record-breaking release at the Toledo Bend Reservoir included 9 gates open 22 ft. each after a massive rainfall. It left homes flooded and residents outraged, one pointing a finger at SRA leadership. "I would like for somebody to take him out and tie him to an ant bed and pour syrup all over him and let the ants take care of him," Larry Addison said. "He knew, we got a camp up there south of Zoilee, LA and he knew all that water was coming because it was pouring down up there for two days and what'd he do? He wasn't worried about it." Mr. Addison and the other residents gathered for a meeting in Deweyville listening to the attorney. He's looking at whether to pursue a class action lawsuit. "Our basic argument is that the SRA acting under whatever authority they have actually taken damage and destroyed these private owners of the property destroyed their property without compensation, that's, it violates the Texas constitution," attorney Don Grissom said. The SRA said it did everything it could to minimize damage and that Toledo Bend is not a flood control dam. It operates based on actual lake levels and follows guidelines approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to determine when gates open and by how much.Galassi said SRA was granted its permit in 1968 and was re licensed for 50 more years in 2014. Ann Galassi with the Sabine River Authority said it does not hold water for recreational purposes. "We did the best we could with the guides that we have and we really feel for the people in the downstream, the people in Deweyville, our hearts go out to them," she said. She said after the record event, the regulatory commission could review the guidelines and the SRA would welcome that. TRAIL LINES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Retana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trail Lines, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. BC613561 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages due, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, and violation of the California Labor Code. Trail Lines, Inc. owns and operates a trucking company located at 5550 Ferguson Dr., Commerce, CA 90022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com david@kristensenlaw.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Hayman" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Lori Hayman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 160200142, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01152-HB to the proceeding. Transworld Systems, Inc. operates a financial service company that provides cash flow management by providing fixed fee accounts receivable solutions and collections. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Deliberty, Esq. THE DELIBERTY LAW FIRM 2809 W. Chester Pike, Suite 100 Broomall, PA 19008 Telephone: (610) 353-0322 E-mail: dan@delibertylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ross S. Enders, Esq. SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC 2303 Oxfordshire Rd Furlong, PA 18925 Telephone: (215) 794-7207 Facsimile: (215) 794-5079 E-mail: renders@sessions-law.biz TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Chunk Light Tuna --------------------------------------------------- Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is voluntarily recalling a 2,745 cases (equal to 107,280 cans) of Chicken of the Sea brand 5 oz. canned chunk light tuna in oil and 5 oz. canned chunk light tuna in water. This recall has been initiated because the product may have been undercooked due to an equipment malfunction, which was uncovered during a routine inspection. These deviations were part of the commercial sterilization process and could result in contamination by spoilage organisms or pathogens, which could lead to life- threatening illness if consumed. There have been no reported illnesses to date connected with the affected products, and Tri- Union Seafoods LLC is issuing this voluntary recall to ensure the highest level of safety and quality. The UPC code, Best By date and lot codes are used to determine the products involved. The UPC code (also known as the bar code) is found on the label of the product. The Best By date is printed on the bottom of the can. The product lot codes that are part of this voluntary recall can also be found on the bottom of the can. The specific products being recalled are as follows: Chicken of the Sea 5 Oz. Canned Chunk Light Tuna in Oil Chicken of the Sea Brand 5 oz. canned chunk light tuna in oil sold at retailers nationwide in single cans between Feb. 10, 2016 and March 16, 2016. The UPC code is 0 4800000195 5 and the Best By date is 2/10/19. LOT CODE BEST BY DATE -------- ------------ 6OA3Z SCEES 2/10/19 6OAAZ SCEES 2/10/19 6OABZ SCEEB 2/10/19 6OACZ SCEEB 2/10/19 Chicken of the Sea 5 Oz. Canned Chunk Light Tuna in Water Chicken of the Sea Brand 5 oz. canned chunk light tuna in water sold at retailers nationwide in single cans between Feb. 18, 2016 and March 16, 2016. The UPC code is 0 4800000245 7. The Best By dates are: 2/18/19 2/22/19 2/23/19 2/25/19 3/2/19 3/3/19 LOT CODE BEST BY DATE -------- ------------ 6OJEB SCAEB 2/18/19 6OJCB SCAFB 2/18/19 6ONEB SCAIB 2/22/19 6OOFZ SCAFB 2/23/19 6ORDB SCAFB 2/25/19 6ORAB SCAFB 2/25/19 LOT CODE BEST BY DATE -------- ------------ 6L2CB SCAFB 3/2/19 6L32B SCAEB 3/3/19 6L33B SCAEB 3/3/19 6L35B SCAEB 3/3/19 6L3CB SCAEB 3/3/19 "The health and safety of our consumers is our number one priority. As soon as we discovered the issue, we took immediate steps to initiate this voluntary recall, alerting our retail customers that received the product and instructing them to remove it from store shelves," said Shue Wing Chan, president of Tri- Union Seafoods LLC. No other codes of these products or other Chicken of the Sea products are affected by this voluntary recall. Consumers may return the product to the store where they purchased it for a full refund. Anyone with questions or concerns about this recall should call the 24-hour recall information line at 1-866- 600-2681 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/vXllUK TRIPLE E: Recalls Regency GT 2014 Model Due to Scalding Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 26, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 1 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016037TC ID number: 2016037 On certain motorhomes, a defect in the on-demand hot water heater, manufactured by Atwood Mobile Products, could result in a risk of scalding injury due to excessive hot water temperature. Correction: Owners will be provided with instructions from Atwood Mobile Products on how and where to have repairs completed. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- TRIPLE E REGENCY GT 2014 TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Hold Trial This Summer ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maggie Severns and Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico.com, report that the plaintiffs in a years-long legal battle against Trump University are making a play for a trial date that could put Donald Trump on the witness stand around the time of the Republican National Convention. In a new court filing, they asked the judge to hold a trial this summer on parts of the class-action case against Trump University that could be tried without a jury. Lawyers from both sides acknowledged that arguing the case before a jury this summer -- when the polarizing GOP front-runner will surely be in the spotlight -- would be extremely difficult. But Rachel Jensen of San Diego, who represents the plaintiffs, argued that there should be at least a partial trial this summer. Two of three claims now pending against Trump could be reviewed by U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel at that time, Jensen wrote. The 2010 case has dragged on too long, she said, to the point where one plaintiff is so old that "time is of the essence" when it comes to settling the dispute over whether Trump defrauded students who paid for his real estate seminars. To keep putting off the trial while former students are trying to pay off thousands of dollars in credit card debt stemming from Trump University would "be as prejudicial as a loss," Ms. Jensen said in the filing. Mr. Trump's lawyers made the opposite case during a hearing: The class-action fraud case against Trump University "will be a zoo if it goes to trial" in August, Trump's lawyer Daniel Petrocelli said. And he accused the plaintiffs' lawyers of dumping the filing on the eve of a presidential debate in order to fan media attention. To that claim, the plaintiffs' lawyers threw Trump's words back at him. "Trump recently testified that he is 'dying to go to court on this case,' so defendants should be amenable," the plaintiff's lawyers wrote. Excerpts from a sworn deposition also filed on March 17 show Trump at times baiting the lawyers questioning him by telling them he's eager for his day in court and saying he's "been waiting for it for a long time." Judge Curiel has another key decision to make soon on Trump University as well: Whether to let one of the lead plaintiffs, Tarla Makaeff, exit the case. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Wants Class Action Trial to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- J.W. August, writing for NBC San Diego, reports that attorneys for a plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit against Trump University have asked a San Diego judge to allow the trial to proceed, with or without a jury. On March 16, Jason Forge, attorney for plaintiff Tarla Makaeff, said she may be willing to forego a jury trial in order to speed things up, depending on what attorneys for Donald Trump request. Ms. Makaeff was the first to bring the suit against Mr. Trump's Trump University. The class-action suit is scheduled to be heard in a San Diego courtroom. Two different lawsuits allege Mr. Trump's school engaged in deceptive practices and scammed thousands of students who enrolled in response to claims the school would make them rich in the real estate market. Mr. Trump has denied all allegations. Her attorneys argue that Sonny Low, one of the other plaintiffs, and other seniors, "need resolution before it is too late" and the case should not depend on the "political process or the level of publicity this case garners, which is out of their control." Forge said they would make their case simple, explaining that "people were promised an actual university, and they didn't get one. And they were promised an actual university with which Donald Trump was integrally involved, and he wasn't. It's that simple," according to court filings. In another filing late on March 16 from the plaintiffs, a brief printed excerpt from Donald Trump's videotaped deposition was released. Mr. Trump, identified as "The Witness" is quoted as saying, "I am dying to go to court on this case", when he asked about whether he has given "praise to someone because you may need their help for a deal." The brief ends with a question from Forge: "And you won't answer the question as pertaining to Jeb Bush?" To which Trump responds, "This is politics." His attorney says, "I won't allow him to answer the question." It is unclear what the question pertained to. On March 18, Ms. Makaeff asked a San Diego judge to allow her to withdraw from the case. The judge has still not made a decision. Her attorneys previously said she never thought she would be publicly ridiculed by the GOP candidate on the campaign trail. U.S. Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel said on March 18 in court that he needed more time to review the case before making a decision. Mr. Trump's lawyers argue that the lawsuit should be dismissed if Ms. Makaeff is allowed to be excused because the suit hinges on her testimony. TRUMPF MEDIZIN: Recalls iLED and TruLight Lighting Systems ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2016 Posting date: February 22, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57186 Manufacturer has received information stating the iLED and TruLight lighting systems have fallen from the central axis. The reported incidents occurred while the lights were being positioned for surgical procedures and have been involved in one injury to a user. The investigation of this issue has determined the root cause is due to the improper installation of the snap ring that can occur when a spring arm is attached to the central axis. The snap ring is located inside the interface and holds the spring arm in place. If the snap ring is installed improperly, the spring arm of the lighting system can descend over time, and eventually fall from the central axis. When the snap ring has been installed properly, the potential for the lighting system to fall does not exist. Affected products: TRULIGHT 3000 SURGICAL LIGHT Lot or serial number: All Lots Model or catalog number: TE300H TE330 TE551-2 Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg, Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9, Saalfeld, 07318 GERMANY B. TRULIGHT 5000 SURGICAL LIGHT Lot or serial number: All Lots Model or catalog number: T131 T300 T310 T500 T510 T510-2 T530 T531 T550 Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg, Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9, Saalfeld, 07318 GERMANY C. ILED 3 SURGICAL LIGHT Lot or serial number: All Lots Model or catalog number: 1300 1310 1320 1330 1331 1340 1430 337540 337542 337550 337618 Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg, Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9, Saalfeld, 07318 GERMANY D. ILED 5 SURGICAL LIGHT Lot or serial number: All Lots Model or catalog number: 1500 1500-2 1510 1510-2 337541 337547 337556 Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg, Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9, Saalfeld, 07318 GERMANY E. TRUVIDIA Lot or serial number: All Lots Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg, Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9, Saalfeld, 07318 GERMANY TSC DIRECT: Recalls AquaRug Products Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2016 Posting date: January 28, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56846 This recall involves AquaRug with four plastic suction cups. The rugs are intended to provide a slip-resistant surface in the shower or bathtub. The rugs were sold in beige and clear, and in two sizes: 29.5 inches by 17.25 inches for use in the bathtub, and 21.75 inches by 19.75 inches for use in a shower stall. The rugs have a plastic border and only four plastic suction cups, one affixed to the underside of each corner of the rug. "AquaRug" and "As Seen On TV" are printed on the front of the cardboard packaging. The four suction cups on the underside of the rugs can fail to prevent slipping, posing a fall hazard to the user. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. Tristar Products has received 60 reports of consumers falling in the shower or bathtub while on the recalled rugs including 30 reports of injuries such as bruises, cuts and fractured or broken bones. About 70,000 rugs were sold in Canada and about 1.4 million rugs were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold from July 2012 to September 2015. Manufactured in China. Distributor: Tristar Products Inc., Fairfield New Jersey UNITED STATES Distributor: TSC Direct, a division of Rogers Media Inc. Toronto Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shower rugs and contact Tristar Products for instructions on how to dispose of the rugs and to obtain a free replacement rug. For more information, consumers can contact Tristar Products at 1- 888-770-7125 from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website and click on "Aqua Rug Recall" for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/7cSv5J UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for Jan. 2017 in "Morgate" Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that trial is scheduled for January 2017 in the "Morgate" class action. UPS and its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. Trial is scheduled for January 2017. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a package delivery company. UNITED PARCEL: Apppeal in AFMS Case Pending ------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of the AFMS LLC case is pending. In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in federal court in the Central District of California in August 2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third- party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such negotiators. UPS and FedEx have moved for summary judgment. The Court granted these motions on April 30, 2015, entered judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx, and dismissed the case. On May 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. "The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") has an open civil investigation of our policies and practices for dealing with third-party negotiators," the Company said. "We have cooperated with this investigation. We deny any liability with respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend ourselves." United Parcel Service, Inc. is a package delivery company. UNITED PARCEL: Ontario Class Action Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending one remaining class action lawsuit in Ontario. "In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and 2013)," the Company said. "The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada." "The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. "The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. "The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. "We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. "There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter," the Company said. "Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity." United Parcel Service, Inc. is a package delivery company. UNITED PARCEL: New York Case Settlement Granted Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has granted final approval of the settlement of a class action against freight forwarders in New York. In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. After two rounds of motions to dismiss, in October 2014, UPS entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for an immaterial amount. The court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement in January 2016. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a package delivery company. UNITED STATES: Gun Rights Class Action Against Two AGs Amended -------------------------------------------------------------- On March 15, 2016, attorneys Michael E. Zapin and Herman A. Saitz filed a Class Action lawsuit against Loretta Lynch as Attorney General of the United States and Thomas E. Brandon, as Deputy Director and Head of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on behalf of their client, Barry Michaels and millions of others similarly situated. Barry Michaels is a Democrat running for United States Congress in Nevada's 3rd District. Mr. Michaels is a non-violent felon whose conviction dates back nearly twenty years. Under current federal law, he is unable to possess a firearm to protect himself and his family. Since completing his sentence, Michaels returned to school and graduated from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, with a bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in public administration. He has over fifty years of business experienceand continues to be involved in several business ventures including Avatar Airlines, an ultra low-fare national airline currently in the startup phase. Mr. Michaels alleges a provision of the Federal Gun Control Act as applied to him and millions of other similarly situated law- abiding citizens, violate their constitutional right under the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The statute in question is 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, for "every" person "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. . . to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition." Mr. Michaels alleges that the statute's original purpose was to protect the public from violent offenders. He believes that the statute is too broad as written and should have been narrowly tailored to meet the government's compelling interest to prevent violence. "There is no justification for applying the statute to non-violent felons that have been law-abiding for more than five years, since there is no data to suggest that they are any more dangerous or any more likely to commit a violent crime, than any other law- abiding citizen," Mr. Michaels argues. The complaint also addresses several other questions of law as applied to the class: -- What constitutes a "law-abiding citizen?" -- What constitutes punishment? -- Is the statute in fact an unlawful Bill of Attainder? -- Does the statute violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? -- Does a lifetime ban violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment? There are approximately 20 million felons representing over 8% of our country's population and nearly half of them are non-violent offenders. There is no logical argument which can be made, nor empirical data presented, to indicate a direct correlation between the public's safety and the non-violent offenders. The lawsuit is as much about civil liberties and the constitution, as it is about Mr. Michaels' desire to own a firearm for self-protection and other lawful purposes. Mr. Michaels states, "it makes no sense to me that I'm able to serve in Congress or even become President of the United States, but 'me and Martha Stuart' are both barred for the rest of our lives from owning a firearm to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Something is wrong with this picture. The idea of creating second class citizens contradicts the clear language of the Second Amendment." A copy of the complaint can be viewed and printed at: www.michaelsvslynch.com Class Members can join at: www.americansforcivilrights.org/join-the-class-action there is no cost to members. For more information or to schedule an interview call: Michael E. Zapin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ZAPIN Counsel for Plaintiffs 20283 State Rd. 7 Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33498 Tel. No. 561-330-5732 zapinclass@gmail.com Barry Michaels, DC, MPA 9708 Gilespie St, Suite 104 Las Vegas, Nevada 89183 Cell Phone: (702) 415-0905 www.nevadaonly@yahoo.com VIVINT INC: "Noori" Sues Over Illegal Dismissal ----------------------------------------------- Frank Noori, as an individual and on behalf of the putative class, Plaintiff(s), v. Vivint, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC611434 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, February 24, 2016), seeks statutory, compensatory, special, general and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and such other and further relief under California Labor Laws. Vivint, Inc. is a private home security, home automation and energy management services provider in the United States, Canada and New Zealand. Noori was hired as a field service professional but was illegally dismissed due to his past history of domestic violence. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin Fok, Esq. DHF LAW, APC 234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel: (310) 430-9933 Fax: (818)484-2023 Email: devin@devinfoklaw.com VMWARE INC: Facing "Ford" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court ------------------------------------------------------------- VMWare, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Francis M. Ford, a VMware Class A stockholder, filed on November 17, 2015, an action in the Delaware Chancery Court against certain current and former VMware directors, among others, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by Dell of EMC, and the proposed issuance of tracking stock that is intended to track the performance of VMware. The plaintiff does not assert claims directly against VMware, but purports to bring class claims on behalf of other VMware Class A stockholders and derivative claims on behalf of VMware. While VMware does not believe that the case represents a material adverse exposure, no assurances can be given that the litigation will not have any adverse consequences for the company or the directors named in the suit. VMware, Inc. ("VMware") pioneered the development and application of virtualization technologies with x86 server-based computing, separating application software from the underlying hardware. VOLKSWAGEN: Meeting Sought to Tackle EU Emissions Customer Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Herald reports that U.S. law firm Hausfeld said it plans to pursue claims of European customers harmed by Volkswagen's emissions scandal. The move came as lawyers and legal organizations across Europe are busy looking for ways to cash in the scandal. The European VW customers lack the legal tools to set up a pan-EU class action lawsuit. According to Reuters, in a letter to the German carmaker's top management and chairman, Hausfeld has called on the company to meet before the end of March to discuss potential European customer claims. In a letter to Chief Executive Matthias Mller and Supervisory Board Chairman Hans Dieter P”tsch, Hausfeld and his firm's German partner, Christopher Rother, requested the meeting to begin a process of dialogue with the company, The Wall Street Journal reports. Michael Hausfeld, a Washington attorney, is one of 22 lawyers appointed by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to work on the Volkswagen class action in the U.S. The scandal consolidates more than 500 civil suits filed across the country. The carmaker admitted in September 2015 that it installed "defeat devices" to cheat emissions test in about 11 million diesel cars across the globe. Volkswagen announced two months later a $1,000 compensation program for U.S. customers. U.S. District Judge Breyer told the company in February that he wanted a firm answer by March 24 on how the carmaker plans to fix the affected vehicles. Mr. Hausfeld said he will push to get the same deals for Europeans as American customers and investors. He said the deal starting with $1,000 goodwill compensation that VW has ruled out for U.S. car owners. In a phone interview reported by Politico, Mr. Hausfeld said there is no justification for not having similar payments for European customers because the damage they have suffered is the same. Mr. Hausfeld's law firm said German VW customers alone could be entitled to claim up to 2.5 billion euros ($2.8 billion) in damages. German law firm TISAB said 278 institutional investors in Volkswagen filed a 3.26 billion euros ($3.62 billion) lawsuit against the carmaker. The investors sued VW for what they see as breaches of its capital markets duty in the scandal. Rother said the best way for Volkswagen to resolve the issue with its German customers would be to engage in negotiations on a compensation scheme as suggested by Ken Feinberg for U.S. customers. Rother said that he and Hausfeld offer to Volkswagen to initiate such a dialogue in order to avoid litigation. The carmaker has so far declined any request for a negotiated settlement in such cases in Germany. VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Q5 and Tiguan 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 27, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 218 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016041TC ID number: 2016041 Manufacturer recall number: 69L9 / 69M1 On certain vehicles, the driver and/or right front passenger seat- mounted airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of either of the seat-mounted airbags to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the affected driver and/or passenger seat side airbag modules with new production modules. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- AUDI Q5 2015 VOLKSWAGEN TIGUAN 2015 WASHINGTON: WSP Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Wm Bailey v. Tim Thrasher, Donald Holbrook, and Dustin Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 4:16-cv-05025-JLQ (E.D. Wa., March 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Prisoner Civil Rights. Washington State Penitentiary is a Washington State Department of Corrections men's prison located in Walla Walla, Washington. Bradley Wm Bailey is a pro se plaintiff. YOUR MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cenkus" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Cenkus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Your Marketing Source, Inc. d/b/a Internet Local Listings and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-00475 (C.D. Cal., March 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Your Marketing Source, Inc. operates a marketing consulting firm helping business with direct marketing. Brett Cenkus is a pro se plaintiff. * Price Comparison Class Actions Likely to Pile Up in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline K. Matthews, Esq. of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that common retail practice of comparing an item's current price with a higher "original," "regular," or "MSRP" price has recently come under increasing fire from consumers, who say the higher comparison price is often fictitious and misleads shoppers into believing they are getting a better bargain than they really are. Over the past two and a half years, more than 50 putative class actions have been filed in courts across the country, seeking relief under state consumer protection statutes for purchases made in reliance on these allegedly misleading price comparisons. Until recently, these class actions had been concentrated in California, where plaintiffs can take advantage of state statutes that do not require a consumer to show that they sustained an actual economic loss in order to state a claim. Under each of California's three consumer protection statutes, plaintiffs sufficiently plead an injury so long as they allege they would not have made the purchase but for the misleading price comparison. Hinojos v. Kohl's, 718 F.3d 1098, 1107 (9th Cir. 2013). That is, even if the items they purchase are worth no less than what consumers paid for them, the California statutes still permit consumers to obtain relief in the form of restitution or an injunction. New York state and federal courts have expressly rejected this theory of injury under New York's consumer protection statutes, holding that some difference between the value and the price paid is necessary to plead injury. See, e.g., Weisblum v. Prophase Labs, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 3d 283, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). New York might therefore be assumed to be a less attractive forum for price comparison class action plaintiffs. Nevertheless, five separate putative class actions alleging false or misleading price comparisons have been filed in the Southern District of New York against five different retailers in the past six weeks alone. It's clear that at least a subset of the New York plaintiff's bar has caught the scent of these price comparison claims, and the class action filings are likely to continue piling up. Retailers operating in New York, whether they deal in clothing, electronics, furniture, or anything in between, need to be prepared to defend their pricing policies against this type of attack. * Scottish Gov't Plans to Introduce Class Action Procedure ---------------------------------------------------------- Siobhan Sullivan, Esq., of Brodies LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that class actions do not yet exist in Scotland, however recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission to introduce this type of procedure to the Scottish Courts are being considered by the Scottish Government. Class actions may benefit those making claims in respect of faulty products, since these claims quite often have common issues. The English Courts have used this procedure to good effect in cases alleging faulty products, ranging from metal on metal hip implants and PIP breast implants to motor vehicles, cosmetics, toys and even McDonald's coffee cups! From the claimant's point of view, the main advantage to joining a class action is that "unity is strength". A claim that would have been difficult to bring on your own is made easier if you are one of 500 people who can help with the heavy-lifting. The lack of an equivalent Scottish procedure (for now) isn't necessarily a barrier to gaining strength in numbers. The largest class action (or "group litigation") so far in England involved over 4,000 claimants who suffered burns from chemicals in leather sofas. Our specialist product liability team handled a number of the Scottish leather sofa cases, and through the established networks we have with the English solicitors leading the group litigation, we were able to ensure that the Scottish claimants achieved a successful outcome. * Tobacco Industry May Face More Punitive Damages After Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- News4JAX reports that in a defeat for the tobacco industry, the Florida Supreme Court on March 17 opened cigarette makers to more potential punitive damages in lawsuits stemming from smokers' illnesses or deaths. The ruling came in an Alachua County case that involved the 1992 death of a smoker, but it also would apply to other tobacco lawsuits that have flooded the legal system during the past decade. Those lawsuits are known in the legal world as "Engle progeny" cases and are an outgrowth of a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision that established crucial findings about the dangers of smoking and misrepresentation by cigarette makers. Resolving conflicting decisions from lower courts, the Supreme Court on March 17 found that plaintiffs in the cases can seek punitive damages against tobacco companies based on legal claims of negligence and strict liability. In doing so, the court rejected the arguments of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which said punitive damages should be limited to issues involving concealment and conspiracy. "We conclude that there is no legal or principled basis for denying Engle progeny plaintiffs the right to pursue punitive damages on all properly pled counts," said the 33-page ruling, written by Justice Barbara Pariente and joined fully by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince, Ricky Polston and James E.C. Perry. Justice Charles Canady agreed in the result but did not sign on to the opinion. The Alachua County case was filed by Lucille Soffer, whose husband, Maurice, died in May 1992 because of lung cancer, the Supreme Court ruling said. A jury found R.J. Reynolds liable based on negligence and strict liability and awarded $5 million in what are known as "compensatory" damages. The jury, however, said Maurice Soffer was 60 percent at fault, so the judgment against R.J. Reynolds was set at $2 million. Lucille Soffer appealed, arguing that the trial judge improperly prevented the jury from awarding punitive damages based on strict liability and negligence. The 1st District Court of Appeal upheld the judge's decision, though it also asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue. The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled differently in another case. Punitive damages are a form of punishment and can multiply the amounts of money awarded in compensatory damages. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't detail the reasons for the compensatory damages in the Soffer case, but generally they are geared toward compensating plaintiffs for such things as financial losses or injuries. R.J. Reynolds argued, at least in part, that Soffer should not be able to seek punitive damages for negligence and strict liability because of details of an original class-action lawsuit that led up to the 2006 Supreme Court "Engle" ruling. That lawsuit, filed in 1994, did not include punitive damages for negligence and strict liability. "(Allowing) progeny plaintiffs to pursue expanded claims for strict liability and negligence would be profoundly unfair to the Engle defendants,'' the company said in a 2014 court filing. "Two decades ago, the Engle (class action) complaint put defendants on notice that they faced only compensatory damages on the class' claims for strict liability and negligence, and that they faced vastly broader exposure to punitive damages only on the class' intentional-tort (concealment and conspiracy) claims." In that filing, R.J. Reynolds said more than 8,000 Engle progeny cases had been filed, with more than 4,000 pending at the time in state and federal courts. In its ruling on March 17, the Supreme Court sent the Soffer case back to circuit court for a trial limited to whether punitive damages should be awarded on the negligence and strict-liability claims. "We emphasize that Soffer still must satisfy the statutory requirements to demonstrate entitlement to punitive damages under these theories, including that the trier of fact must find, based on clear and convincing evidence, that R.J. Reynolds was 'personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence,'" Justice Pariente wrote, quoting part of state law. ********* 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 * * *