/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160406.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 69 Headlines ACCESS MIDSTREAM: "Kovach" Suit Survives Bids to Dismiss ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Actos Direct Purchasers Suit Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Still Defends AndroGel Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Still Defends Asacol Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Botox(R) Litigation Remains Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Cipro(R) Litigation Remains Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Mylan's Appeal in Doryx(R) Litigation Still Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Lidoderm(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Judgment in Loestrin(R) 24 Case Vacated ALLERGAN PLC: Named in 1,239 Benicar(R) Cases ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Labs Resolves 4 of 5 Celexa/Lexapro Cases ALLERGAN PLC: 187 Celexa/Lexapro Birth Defect Cases Pending ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST: CREEC Class Action Deal Okayed BARD CANADA: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Claims for $2.4 Million BLUE CROSS: DK LTD Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Enforces Settlement Deal in "Jarvis" BONCHON U.S.A.: Faces Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Laws BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: FDA Probes Safety of Vaginal Mesh Implants BRIXMOR PROPERTY: May 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set BUSINESS LAW GROUP: "Kamra" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla. CAPITAL BANK: Faces "Garfield" Class Action in Florida CAPITAN WIRELINE: "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Violated Sherman Act, "Powers" Suit Claims CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Okla. Lawsuit for Alleged Price Fixing CHICAGO, IL: Red Light Camera Systems Constitutional, Judge Rules CLASSIC DISTRIBUTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages COCO'S DELI INC: Faces "Ganzhi" Class Action in S.D.N.Y. COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed TransCanada Merger CONSTRUCTOMICS LLC: Faces Artisan Suit Over Breach of Contract CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay CORE CONSTRUCTION: "Delaney" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay COSTA COFFEE: Accused of Under-Filling Latte Product in UK CITIMORTGAGE INC: Florida Court Stays "Zia" Suit DS HEALTHCARE: Sued in Fla. over Misleading Financial Reports EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Motion for Leave to Appeal Still Pending EXXON MOBIL: 3rd Amended Suit, Bid to Intervene Okayed in "Nolan" FEDEX CORP: Faces "Abdallah" Suit for Alleged Violation of TCPA FLINT, MI: Another Water Crisis Community Meeting Held FUSION AUTOPLEX: "Allen" Suit Seeks Wage & Overtime Pay GREENE COUNTY, AL: Hospital Employees File Class Action GURLEY MOTOR: Court Won't Offset Class Damages Awarded in "Yazzie" HALE & HEARTY SOUPS: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D.N.Y. HALLIBURTON: Duncan Residents Set to Receive Settlement Payouts HARTFORD ACCIDENT: "O'Brien" Suit Stays in D. Montana IDAHO: Ordered to Safeguard People with Disabilities IGT: Class Action Over DoubleDown Social Casino Site Dismissed IPS ENGINEERING: Glencoe Residents Win Fire Class Action JAMES CRAIG BAIR: Faces "Moreno" Suit in Col. Dist. Ct. KRAFT HEINZ: Violated UCL & CLRA, "Mattley" Suit Claims LIBERTY SILVER: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Bobby Genovese LOS ANGELES, CA: Ex-Undersheriff Testifies in Jail Abuse Suit LUXURY SUITES: Court Rules on Sinanyan's Discovery Bid MARATHON PETROLEUM: Stipulation to Dismiss Merger Suit Okayed MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL: Settles Nurse Case Manager's OT Wage Suit MASTEC INC: Court Scheduled March 2017 Trial in "Wrigley" Case MAXIMUM IDENTITY: Faces New Diamond Suit in New York MERRILL LYNCH: Aug. 29 Final Approval Hearing in "Davis" Suit MI BELLA: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Miguel" Suit Claims MIAMI BOOMERS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Damages, OT Pay under FLSA MIAMI JEWELRY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Labin" Suit in E.D.N.Y. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Moutauakil" Suit E.D.N.Y. MIDLAND FUNDING: "Walkabout" Suit Dismissed MILLER ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Amid Bankruptcy MOST WORSHIPFUL: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action NARCONON OF NORTHERN CALIF: "Burgoon" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Stabler's Ex-Wife File Concussion Class Action NATIONWIDE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Charges NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Pay $7.5MM to Settle Investor Claims NESTLE INDIA: FSSAI Issues Contradicting Guidelines NEW MEXICO: Immigrant Advocates Call for Release of Tax Refunds NEW RESIDENTIAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Remains Pending NEW YORK: "Cisco" Suit v. Governor Cuomo Closed OBESITY RESEARCH: Faces "Bozic" Suit Over Weight Loss Pill Ads OKINAWA SUSHI: "Zhao" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages OMEGA ENGINEERING: Sued in N.Y. Over Disability Discrimination OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, "Orden" Says OVASCIENCE INC: Securities Case Remanded to Mass. Superior Court P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Black" Suit in Illinois Under FLSA P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D.N.Y. PIZZA POINT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violation QUESTAR CORPORATION: Violated Exchange Act, "Ipson" Suit Claims RA ARIAS LANDSCAPING: "Fragoso" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay SA PATHOLOGY: Faulty Cancer Testing Kits May Spur Class Action SAHARA EAST RESTAURANT: "Dacaj" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Dismisses "St. Jon" Suit SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: To Seek Dismissal of "Hall" Action SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Plaintiffs Appeal Remand Order SENTINEL OFFENDER: Needs Court Order for Probationers' Drug Test SHAMROCKFOODS COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SIRIUS XM: Continues to Face TCPA Class Suits SOLVAY SOLEXIS: Settles Class Action Over Contaminated Water SOUTHERN HEALTH: Mother Mulls Class Action Over Care Failings STERLING BACKCHECK: Faces "Halem" Suit in E.D. Virginia SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces "Felix" Suit in N.D. Georgia TD AMERITRADE: Judge's F&R Adopted as to SLUSA Preclusion Issue TAKATA CORP: Cunningham Brothers Sues Over Defective Air Bags TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action Now in Discovery Stage UFC: Counsel Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certified in "Ward" Suit Over Pilot Wages UNITY RECOVERY: Violated FLSA & WARN Act, "Hartel" Suit Claims UNUM LIFE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Class Claim in "Davis" UPTOWN WEST: Faces "Taveras" Suit in S.D.N.Y. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Morris" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Committee Formed for Dealer Settlement Talks VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Lambert" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672 WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Ferry Ticket Expiration Dates WELLS FARGO: Engaged in Improper Collection, "Miller" Suit Claims WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Clark" Suit in S.D. Indiana WORLD WIDE VACATIONS: Faces "Makaron" Suit in C.D. California * Employers Face Risk of Background Check, Credit Report Suits * Firefighting Foam Likely Cause of Delaware C8 Contamination ********* ACCESS MIDSTREAM: "Kovach" Suit Survives Bids to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned LINDA KOVACH, et al., PLAINTIFFS, v. ACCESS MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P., et al., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:15-cv-616 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Sara Lioi denied the motions to dismiss filed by Access Midstream Partners, L.P., n/k/a William Partners, L.P. and by Chesapeake Energy Corporation. The plaintiffs, who are parties to one of two types of leases with subsidiaries of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, filed a complaint alleging that Chesapeake, in response to its dire financial situation, devised a fraudulent scheme with Access Midstream Partners, L.P. whereby Chesapeake would secure much needed cash by improperly withholding royalties owed to the plaintiffs. The first amended complaint raised five causes of action. The first cause of action purported to set out a civil violation under section 1962(c) of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by which the plaintiffs alleged that an enterprise, comprised of defendants and their respective officers and directors, was formed for the purpose of facilitating a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs and other mineral rights owners through unwarranted deductions from the royalties owed to the plaintiffs. The second cause of action alleged a conspiracy to violate RICO, under section 1962(d). The complaint also asserted numerous state law claims for unjust enrichment, wrongful conversion of the plaintiffs' property for the defendants' own use, and for civil conspiracy under Ohio common law. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the allegations in the first amended complaint fail to state a cause of action under federal or state law, and that the fraud allegations are not pled with sufficient particularity to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Judge Lioi found that the first amended complaint adequately pleads federal claims for RICO conspiracy and substantive RICO violations and thus, the judge was satisfied that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. As to the state law claims, Judge Lioi did not believe that it would be fruitful to parse through the requirements of each state law claim at this time, because many of these claims also relied on the same allegations that formed the basis for the RICO claims. A full-text copy of Judge Lioi's March 23, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/Jbv6Cefrom Leagle.com. Linda Kovach, Gary L. Teeter, Denise Teeter, Sarah A. Heilman, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Smolen -- danielsmolen@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman, David A. Warta -- davidwarta@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman, Dennis A. Caruso,Donald E. Smolen, II -- donaldsmolen@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman, Jennifer L. Thomas, Robert M. Blakemore -- bobblakemore@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman & William J. Price, Elk & Elk. Access Midstream Partners, L.P., Defendant, represented by Michael J. Gibbens -- michael.gibbens@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy, Roy A. Powell -- rapowell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Christopher B. Woods -- christopher.woods@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy, Mack J. Morgan, III -- mack.morgan@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy, Michael R. Gladman -- mrgladman@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Susan E. Huntsman -- susan.huntsman@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy & Victor E. Morgan -- victor.morgan@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy. Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Seamus C. Duffy -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath, Jessica Knopp Cunning -- jkcunning@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Peter A. Lusenhop -- kmpeters@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Timothy B. McGranor -- tbmcgranor@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & William M. Connolly -- william.connolly@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath. ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Actos Direct Purchasers Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Defendants have moved to dismiss the direct purchasers' complaint in the Actos(R) antitrust litigation. On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions, on behalf of putative classes of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, were filed in the federal court for the Southern District of New York against Actavis plc and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson" now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010 patent lawsuit settlement with Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd. related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin "Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several additional complaints have also been filed. Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges an overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 23, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers' complaint in its entirety. In May 2015, two additional putative class action complaints, each of which makes similar allegations against the Company and Takeda, were filed by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers. Defendants have moved to dismiss the direct purchasers' complaint. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Still Defends AndroGel Litigation ----------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend against the AndroGel(R) litigation in Georgia. On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the State of California filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California alleging that the September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of AndroGel(R) in exchange for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote AndroGel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in federal district court in California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated claimants. On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The FTC and the private plaintiffs filed amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO"), conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation. Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of AndroGel(R). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred all federal court actions then pending outside of Georgia to that district. The district court then granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims except the private plaintiffs' sham litigation claims. After the dismissal was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the FTC petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court AndroGel Decision"). The case is now back in the district court in Georgia. On August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which the Company answered on September 15, 2014. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Still Defends Asacol Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Warner Chilcott continues to defend against the Asacol(R) Litigation. On June 22, 2015, two class action complaints were filed in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court. On September 21, 2015, three additional complaints were filed on behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers, each raising similar allegations to the complaints filed in June 2015. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Botox(R) Litigation Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the Botox(R) Litigation. On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec.1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 29, 2015. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 20, 2015, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment or adjudication. The Company filed a response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 11, 2016. The court has not yet scheduled oral argument on plaintiff's motion. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Cipro(R) Litigation Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the Cipro(R) Litigation. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. While many of these actions have been dismissed, actions remain pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. There has been activity in Tennessee and Florida since 2003. In the action pending in Kansas, plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been fully briefed. In the action pending in the California state court, following the decision from the United States Supreme Court in the Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis matter involving AndroGel(R), Plaintiffs and Bayer announced that they reached an agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer and Bayer has now been dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants, including Watson and Rugby. The remaining parties submitted letter briefs to the court regarding the impact of the Supreme Court AndroGel Decision and on May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling, consistent with the Supreme Court AndroGel Decision, that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review. In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that various state and federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ALLERGAN PLC: Mylan's Appeal in Doryx(R) Litigation Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Mylan's appeal in the Doryx(R) Litigation remains pending. In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against by purported indirect purchasers. In addition, four retailers filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). In each of the class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court. Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan's summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan is appealing the district court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the appeal is fully briefed. The date for oral argument on the appeal has not yet been set. The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar suits will be filed. ALLERGAN PLC: Lidoderm(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend antitrust lawsuits related to Lidoderm(R). On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches, "Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges that Watson improperly delayed launching generic versions of Lidoderm(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Endo in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations have followed on behalf of other classes of putative direct purchasers and suits have been filed on behalf of putative classes of end-payer plaintiffs. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations may be filed. On April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the cases in federal district court in California. Defendants filed motions to dismiss each of the plaintiff classes' claims. On November 17, 2014, the court issued an order granting the motion in part but denying it with respect to the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs then filed an amended, consolidated complaint on December 19, 2014. Defendants have responded to the amended consolidated complaint. On March 5, 2015, a group of five retailers filed a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities regarding Lidoderm(R) in the same court where it was consolidated with the direct and indirect purchaser class complaints. The retailer complaint recites similar facts and asserts similar legal claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases. The five retailers amended their complaint on July 27, 2015. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Judgment in Loestrin(R) 24 Case Vacated ----------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeals court has vacated judgment in the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation. On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets, "Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations. After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related Loestrin(R)24 cases to the federal court for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral argument was held on December 7, 2015. On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the district court. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the district court's decision granting the Company's motion to dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Named in 1,239 Benicar(R) Cases --------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is named in approximately 1,239 actions involving allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. "Under Forest's Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending us in these lawsuits," the Company said. ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Labs Resolves 4 of 5 Celexa/Lexapro Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Forest Laboratories and its affiliates are defendants in approximately five actions pending in various federal district courts involving allegations that Celexa(R)or Lexapro(R) caused or contributed to individuals committing or attempting suicide, or caused a violent event. The Company has reached agreements in principle to resolve four of the five matters. The remaining case is stayed. ALLERGAN PLC: 187 Celexa/Lexapro Birth Defect Cases Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that approximately 187 actions are pending against Forest Laboratories and its affiliates involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various birth defects. Several of the cases involve multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been consolidated in state court in Missouri where one case is set for trial in September 2016. Five actions remain in New Jersey state court, none of which are set for trial. There are birth defect cases pending in other jurisdictions but none currently are set for trial. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST: CREEC Class Action Deal Okayed --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00216-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Donna M. Ryu granted final approval of the proposed class settlement and awarded attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel. Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC), Ann Cupolo- Freeman, and Julie Reiskin sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act regarding the provision of wheelchair-accessible transportation by hotels. Following continued negotiations, the parties agreed to settle the matter and executed a settlement agreement on October 23, 2015. The court granted preliminary approval for the settlement agreement on December 18, 2015. The plaintiffs thereafter moved for final approval of the settlement, which provides for a comprehensive scheme for injunctive relief, requiring all Ashford- owned and/or operated hotels to come into compliance with ADA regulations that require hotels that offer transportation services to provide equivalent transportation services to people who use wheelchairs or scooters. Judge Ryu found that the proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The judge also found that viewed as a whole, the proposed settlement is sufficiently "fair, reasonable and adequate." Judge Ryu also awarded class counsel $157,597.12 in attorneys' fees and $7,402.88 in expenses. A full-text copy of Judge Ryu's March 22, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/dEzKjVfrom Leagle.com. Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Plaintiff, represented by Bill Lann Lee, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Hillary Jo Benham-Baker -- hillary@cbbllp.com -- Campins Benham, Julia Campins -- julia@cbbllp.com -- Campins Benham, Julie Wilensky, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Kevin W. Williams -- kwilliams@ccdconline.org -- Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program & Timothy P. Fox, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center. Ann Cupolo, Plaintiff, represented by Julia Campins, Campins Benham-Baker, LLP, Bill Lann Lee, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Julie Wilensky, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Kevin W. Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program & Timothy P. Fox, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center. Julie Reiskin, Plaintiff, represented by Julia Campins, Campins Benham, Julie Wilensky, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Kevin W. Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program & Timothy P. Fox, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center. Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nolan S. Armstrong, McNamara Law Firm. RLJ Lodging Trust, Miscellaneous, represented by Steffanie Ann Malla -- steffanie.malla@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP. Hospitality Properties Trust, Miscellaneous, represented by David Howard Raizman -- david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.. BARD CANADA: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Claims for $2.4 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- CTVNews.ca reports that several Canadian women who say they suffered complications from transvaginal mesh used to treat incontinence and organ prolapse have reached a settlement with one of the mesh manufacturers. Bard Canada, the makers of Avaulta, Align, and Adjust brands of transvaginal mesh, has agreed to pay some $2.4 million to settle claims against three products: Avaulta, Align, and Adjust. Bard has agreed to the settlement "without admission of liability or wrongdoing," the agreement notice reads. While there have been individual pelvic mesh lawsuit settlements, if approved, this would be the first class action settlement in Canada. An approval hearing is scheduled for May 2 in which the court will determine whether the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of all the women listed as class members. Transvaginal mesh has become a popular treatment to use as support when pelvic organs such as the bladder descend in the abdomen. Many doctors prefer the surgical mesh because it lifts internal organs without full surgery, since the mesh can be implanted through the vagina. While the mesh has been successful for some women, thousands of others in the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe have reported complications. They include infection from mesh parts breaking off inside the patient, leading to excruciating pain, painful sex, and other internal damage. Dozens of lawsuits are underway in the U.S. and Canada. This is the first class action to be settled in Canada. "This is a significant settlement to be able to bring compensation to women," said Matthew Baer -- baer@mckenzielake.com -- of McKenzie Lake Lawyers in an email to CTV News. "Bard should be commended for working out something fair and reasonable in those circumstances." Donna O'Brien of Cambridge, Ont. received Bard Align transvaginal mesh in December, 2010, to treat incontinence. In a matter of weeks, she says started suffering pain and infections. "I was going to the hospital every week" Ms. O'Brien told CTV News. She says the mesh had started to erode and migrate through her vagina. Doctors attempted to remove the mesh but were unsuccessful. The continuing infections she says caused fluid to build around her heart, triggering a heart attack in 2011. Ms. O'Brien says she welcomes the settlement and hopes to use the money to find a doctor who will try again to remove the remaining mesh. "Hopefully, it will help me to find someone to get fixed -- even outside of Canada," she said. Some 18 mesh lawsuits have been settled in the U.S., some with multi-million dollar awards. "Hopefully, (the Bard settlement) will serve as a catalyst towards all women who have suffered similarly receiving compensation, regardless of manufacturer," said Mr. Baer. The settlement provides for $400,000 to the women who used Avaulta; $1.5 million to those who used Ajust and Allign, a special circumstances fund of $300,000, and $225,000 for notice and claims administration. BLUE CROSS: DK LTD Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala. ---------------------------------------------------------- DK LTD, et al., Plaintiffs v. Blue Cross Blue Shields of Alabama, et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-16-182-M (W.D. Okla., February 25, 2016), alleges that Defendants artificially inflates the premiums charged to consumers. On March 29, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00507-RDP. The case was assigned to Judge R. David Proctor. Blue Cross provides health insurance coverage in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Christopher Cowan, Esq. THE COWAN LAW FIRM One Meadows Building 5005 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: 214-826-1900 Fax: 214-826-8900 Email: chris@cowanlaw.net - and - Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq. ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW Centennial Plaza 2575 Kelley Pointe Parkway, Suite 100 Edmond, OK 73013 Tel: 405-330-9860 Fax: 888-493-6648 Email: bb@bbarneslaw.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P. Post Office Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Tel: 225-687-6396 Fax: 225-687-6398 Email: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com - and - Ami Swank, Esq. Ami Swank Law Firm 811 Timberdell Road Norman, OK 73072 Tel: (405) 361-2797 Fax: (405) 236-5303 E-mail: ami@swank.net BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Enforces Settlement Deal in "Jarvis" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John E. Steele granted the defendant's motion to enforce a settlement agreement in the case captioned KAREN JARVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and MICHAEL JARVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-654-FtM-29CM (M.D. Fla.). Following the purchase of a BMW 2014 MINI Cooper, Karen and Michael Jarvis filed a class action complaint against BMW of North America, LLC (BMW NA), alleging various claims related to the purchase of the vehicle. Over the course of September and October 2015, the parties discussed terms regarding an individual settlement. BMW NA transmitted to the plaintiff's counsel a draft Confidential Settlement Agreement. After several email exchanges with revisions to the draft, the plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that a complete agreement as to all essential terms had been reached and transmitted a copy of the final Confidential Settlement Agreement to BMW NA for execution. On November 12, 2015, BMW NA executed the agreement and returned it to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' counsel, however, advised BMW NA that the plaintiffs refused to sign the agreement. As such, BMW NA moved the court to enforce the Confidential Settlement Agreement. Judge Steele found that the exchange of emails and the acceptance expressed therein by the plaintiffs created a binding and enforceable settlement agreement. The judge explained that while the plaintiffs did not physically sign the settlement agreement, there is no legal requirement that the agreement be memorialized in a formal document in order for it to be enforceable. Judge Steele thus granted BMW NA's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the case was dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of Judge Steele's March 22, 2016 opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/GniEYffrom Leagle.com. BMW of North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark C. Anderson -- mark.anderson@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC & Christopher J. Dalton -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. BONCHON U.S.A.: Faces Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- MOISES ISAIAS COXOLCA SUY, LUIS MIGUEL LARES CUTZAL, and JULIO LUCAS v. BONCHON U.S.A., INC.(d/b/a BONCHON CHICKEN), JINDUK SEH, and HONG TAE KIM, Case 1:16-cv-02454 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the N.Y. Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. Defendants own, operate, or control a Korean/Asian restaurant. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: FDA Probes Safety of Vaginal Mesh Implants ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Weisman, writing for Boston Globe, reports that federal regulators said on April 1 that they are examining allegations Boston Scientific Corp. used counterfeit raw material in vaginal mesh implants that treat urinary incontinence and other pelvic organ problems in women. The Food and Drug Administration disclosed the probe as it issued a safety alert about the products. The agency didn't recommend women remove the implants. "Available data do not suggest any decreased benefit associated with the device," the FDA said. However, the alert said, "the FDA believes that health care professionals and their patients should be aware of this investigation." FDA officials also said Boston Scientific will conduct new tests on the safety and effectiveness of the product -- technically called urogynecologic surgical mesh 00 over the next few months, and the agency will review the results. In a statement, Marlborough-based Boston Scientific said it "does not use 'counterfeit' or 'adulterated' materials" in its medical devices. "We have the highest confidence in the safety of our mesh devices," the statement said. "We have shared our test data with the FDA, and are fully cooperating with the agency's requests for information as part of our ongoing discussions." Boston Scientific and other companies that market vaginal mesh implants have been the targets of thousands of lawsuits over the past decades by women who have used the products to fix a common gynecologic condition called pelvic organ prolapse. Many have reported painful sexual intercourse, infections, urinary problems, overall discomfort, and bleeding. In its safety alert, the FDA said it "is not currently aware that the alleged counterfeit raw material contributes to adverse events associated with these products." Mostyn Law, a Houston law firm, in January filed a suit in US court in West Virginia accusing Boston Scientific of selling defective vaginal mesh implants made from materials smuggled from China, and putting the health of thousands of women at risk. The suit, which seeks class-action status, asks for unspecified damages for as many as 55,000 women a year who received the mesh product since 2012. Boston Scientific denied the charges and said it would vigorously fight the suit. The company, which already faces about 30,000 lawsuits for its vaginal mesh products, paid $119 million last year to settle about 3,000 of these cases. Mostyn Law petitioned the FDA seeking a recall of Boston Scientific's mesh products. But an FDA spokeswoman said that the agency had not received the petition and declined to comment on it. Amber Mostyn, an attorney at Mostyn Law, faulted the FDA for not recalling the product, saying "it is absurd to rely on testing by the company." BRIXMOR PROPERTY: May 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until May 31, 2016 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Brixmor Property Group Inc., if they purchased the Company's securities between October 27, 2014 and February 5, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Brixmor and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by May 31, 2016. About the Lawsuit Brixmor and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, Brixmor announced that its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and an unnamed accounting employee had resigned after an internal accounting review by the Company's Audit Committee showed discrepancies in the Company's financial statements. The Company stated that "specific company accounting and financial reporting personnel, in certain instances, were smoothing income items, both up and down, between reporting periods in an effort to achieve consistent" net operating income results. On this news, the price of Brixmor's shares plummeted by over 20% and it was downgraded by multiple analysts. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. BUSINESS LAW GROUP: "Kamra" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------- Kevin K. Kamra, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Business Law Group, P.A., and LM Funding, LLC, Case No. 16-CA-001801, was removed from the Hillsborough County Court, to the US District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida, Tampa. The Middle District assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00786-CEH-TBM to the proceeding. Business Law Group is a law firm comprising of attorneys with experience in complex litigation, construction defect litigation, insurance claim litigation, and real estate litigation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brad F. Barrios, Esq. Kenneth George Turkel, Esq. BAJO CUVA COHEN TURKEL, PA 100 N Tampa St, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 443 2199 Facsimile: (813) 443 2193 E-mail: brad.barrios@bajocuva.com kturkel@bajocuva.com - and - James Dan Clark, Esq. Matthew A. Crist, Esq. CLARK & MARTINO, PA 3407 W Kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33609-2905 Telephone: (813) 879 0700 Facsimile: (813) 879 5498 E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com mcrist@clarkmartino.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles M. Harris, Jr., Esq. John D. Goldsmith, Jr., Esq. William Albert McBride, Esq. TRENAM KEMKER 200 Central Avenue, Suite 1600 St Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 896 7171 E-mail: cmharris@trenam.com jgoldsmith@trenam.com wam@trenam.com CAPITAL BANK: Faces "Garfield" Class Action in Florida ------------------------------------------------------ Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a case captioned Robert Garfield v. Capital Bank Financial Corp., et al., Index No. 2016-001194-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.), was filed on January 16, 2016, on behalf of a putative class of Capital Bank Financial shareholders against Capital Bank Financial, its directors, and CommunityOne in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida in connection with the merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Capital Bank Financial director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger, that CommunityOne aided and abetted such breaches, and that Capital Bank Financial, its directors and CommunityOne failed to disclose material information in connection with the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses. "We believe that the claims are without merit," the Company said. Capital Bank is a bank holding company incorporated in late 2009 with the goal of creating a regional banking franchise in the southeastern region of the United States through organic growth and acquisitions of other banks, including failed, underperforming and undercapitalized banks. CAPITAN WIRELINE: "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Corona, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Capitan Wireline, LLC, Cutters Wireline and Billy Perkins, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00077 (W.D. Tex., March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Capitan Wireline, LLC and Cutters Wireline are engaged in cased- hole electric wireline services. The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Loren, Esq. George Z. Goldberg, Esq. Rachael Rustmann, Esq. GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA 3102 Maple Ave, Suite 450 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: 800-719-1617 Fax: (954) 585-4886 Email: jloren@lorenlaw.com rrustmann@golbergloren.com ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Violated Sherman Act, "Powers" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Ida Powers and Larry Powers, the Plaintiffs, v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., as successor by merger to Chesapeake Exploration, L.P., Sandridge Energy, Inc., Sandridge Exploration and Production L.L.C., Tom L. Ward, and John Does 1- 50, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00301-M (W.D. Okla, March 31, 2016), seeks to recover damages resulting from Defendant's alleged conspiracy to rig bids and depress the price of royalty and bonus payments exchanged for purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and interests in properties containing producing oil and natural gas wells by Chesapeake Energy Corp., under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis A. Caruso, Esq. CARUSO LAW FIRM, P.C. The Colonial Building 1325 East 15th Street, Suite 201 Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone: (918) 583 5900 E-mail: dcaruso@carusolawfirm.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. Richard A. Koffman, Esq. Emmy L. Levens, Esq. Robert W. Cobbs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2443 S. University Blvd., No. 232 Denver, CO 80210-5407 Telephone: (720) 583 0650 E-mail: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com elevens@cohenmilstein.com rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net - and - Donald L. Perelman, Esq. Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Gerard A. Dever, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567 6565 E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com rliebenberg@finekaplan.com gdever@finekaplan.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Okla. Lawsuit for Alleged Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- CURTIS L. CRANDALL and JANET K. CRANDALL v. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C., as successor by merger to CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.P., SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC., AND TOM L. WARD, Case 5:16-cv-00306-HE (W.D. Okla., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover treble damages for an alleged conspiracy of Defendants to rig bids, fix prices and depress the market for purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold and working interests in violation of the Sherman Act. Chesapeake Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries are the second- largest producer of natural gas and the eleventh largest producer of oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terry W. West, Esq. Bradley C. West, Esq. THE WEST LAW FIRM 124 West Highland Street Shawnee, OK 74801 Phone: (405) 275-0040 Fax: (405) 275-0052 E-mail: brad@thewestlawfirm.com terry@thewestlawfirm.com - and - R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300 P.O. Box 505 Charleston, SC 29451 Phone: (205) 238-6757 Fax: (904) 239-5388 Fax: (662) 368-1506 E-mail:bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com srnccluer@mccul1eymcc1uer.com - and - A. Hoyt Rowell, III, Esq. James L. Ward, Jr., Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN LLC P.O. Box 1007 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465 Phone: (843) 727-6500 Fax: (843) 216-6509 E-mail: hrowell@rpwb.com jward@rpwb.com - and - Christopher J. Stucky, Esq. Benjamin C. Fields, Esq. STUCKY & FIELDS LL 214W.18th St., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 659-9970 Fax: (816) 659-9969 E-mail:chris@2stuckyfields.com CHICAGO, IL: Red Light Camera Systems Constitutional, Judge Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the city of Chicago will be allowed to continue to hand out tickets to motorists caught on camera running red lights after a Cook County judge garaged another legal challenge arguing both the city's ordinance and a state law enabling cities, villages and counties within the Chicago and St. Louis metropolitan areas to set up red light camera systems were valid and constitutional. On April 1, Cook County Circuit Judge Rita M. Novak ruled in favor of Chicago in turning back a "Herculean challenge" brought against the ordinance and its enabling legislation in a class action led by several motorists who had received and paid $100 tickets issued under the city's red light camera program. The class action lawsuit, brought in 2012 by named plaintiffs Terie L. Kata, Maureen Sullivan, Nicholas Clarke, Bohdan Gernaga and Niraj Rami, had demanded the city's red light program be shuttered and the hundreds of millions of dollars in fines paid since 2006 be refunded. The city collects more than $60 million in fines under the program each year. The judge's ruling marks the latest chapter in ongoing efforts to challenge the red light camera program and its various facets on multiple fronts. In February, for instance, a Cook County judge refused to dismiss a class action brought by plaintiffs who claimed the city's policies concerning how much notice is required to those issued tickets through the red light camera program before the city can actually move to collect fines and late fees, if the fines aren't paid. However, the lawsuit brought by Ms. Kata and her fellow plaintiffs directly challenged the validity of the program under the Illinois constitution. The lawsuit asked the judge to declare a state law enabling only municipal governments in eight counties -- Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will counties in the Chicago metro area and Madison and St. Clair counties in the St. Louis metro area -- to install red light cameras is an unconstitutional "local law," illegally applying for no rational reason to just certain communities. The state constitution generally forbids laws in most instances from applying only to certain areas of the state, when laws covering the whole state are more applicable. The plaintiffs noted, for instance, that, while the eight counties are among the most populous in Illinois, they do not include all of the state's most populous counties, particularly noting Winnebago County, which encompasses the city of Rockford, is excluded from the authorizing legislation. Further, the plaintiffs said, the irrational nature of the law is revealed in inconsistencies among the municipalities allowed to install red light camera systems. For instance, the plaintiffs said, tiny towns on the outskirts technically considered to be in the Chicago metro area in McHenry and Will counties could install the cameras, while larger communities just as far from Chicago or St. Louis are not similarly authorized. While calling the argument "valiant," Judge Novak said they are "ultimately unavailing," noting precedent allows the state to enact special laws applying to communities and regions "uniquely situated" compared to the rest of the state. She said this particular law could be considered "rational" as state lawmakers could have easily decided the traffic needs of the eight counties closest geographically, in general, to Chicago and St. Louis would be different from those of the rest of the state. "It was rational for the General Assembly to presume that there are more cars and intersections in the affected areas," Judge Novak wrote. "As such, the occurrence of red light violations is also presumably higher. Further because more cars are likely to be near an intersection at any given time in the affected areas, the risk of a serious accident occurring as a result of a red light violation goes up. Accordingly, the legislature could have rationally concluded that these areas have different enforcement needs than the rest of the state." Alternatively, the plaintiffs had also argued that the city's ordinance concerning the red light camera program should have been considered void following the passage of the 2006 state law. And, since that ordinance was never reenacted, the lawsuit argued tickets under that ordinance should also have been considered void. The city, in response, had argued it had the inherent authority under its home rule powers to enact the ordinance. Judge Novak disagreed with this assertion, saying state law would have preempted the city's ordinance. However, she said the ordinance would not have been void, meaning, after the state enacted its 2006 law, the ordinance took effect and did not need to be reenacted. And that, in turn, meant the city's red light camera tickets were similarly supported by state law. Finally, the judge brushed aside plaintiffs' assertions that the city's red light camera program should be invalidated because the city's traffic signals do not conform to generally recommended principles declaring yellow lights should last a minimum of three seconds. In Chicago, the yellow lights can be considerably shorter, making it more likely motorists could inadvertently run a red light and receive a citation. Judge Novak, however, said those standards, which she noted are considered by "a majority of jurisdictions" to be "nothing more than a guideline," cannot be applied to a facial challenge to the law, saying such allegations would be more applicable under a negligence claim resulting from a traffic accident at an intersection monitored by red light cameras. But none of the plaintiffs involved in the case were involved in such a crash. Plaintiffs in the case were represented by the firm of Roberts McGivney Zagotta, of Chicago. The city was defended by its corporation counsel from its Department of Law. CLASSIC DISTRIBUTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Lorenso Hernandez, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Classic Distributing and Beverage Group, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. BC615317 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Classic Distributing and Beverage Group, Inc. owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and industrial work sites in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 COCO'S DELI INC: Faces "Ganzhi" Class Action in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Coco's Deli, Inc. The case is captioned Patricio Ganzhi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Coco's Deli, Inc., and Josef Ben Moha, in his individual and professional capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02411 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, March 31, 2016). Coco's Deli, founded in 1993, is a small meat market & deli in New York, New York. The Plaintiff appears pro se. COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed TransCanada Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen M. Vann and Dennis Zuke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., TransCanada Pipelines Limited, TransCanada Pipeline USA Ltd., Taurus Merger Sub Inc., TransCanada Corporation, Robert C. Skaggs Jr., Sigmund L. Cornelius, Marty R. Kittrell, W. Lee Nutter, Deborah S. Parker, Teresa A. Taylor and Lester P. Silverman, Case No. 1215 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 30, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., to enjoin the proposed sale of CPG to TransCanada Corporation, through an unfair and improper process, which, in turn, has resulted in an unfair price for CPG stockholders. Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. operates approximately 15,000 miles of strategically located interstate pipeline, gathering and processing assets extending from New York to the Gulf of Mexico, including an extensive footprint in the Marcellus and Utica shale production areas. Transcanada Corporation operates an energy company based in Calgary, Alberta, developing and operating energy infrastructure in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce McNew, Esq. Samuel L. Moultrie, Esq. WILKS LUKOFF & BRACEGIRDLE LLC 1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100 Wilmington, DE 19806 Telephone: (302) 225-0850 Facsimile: (302) 225-0024 E-mail: mcnew@wlblaw.com smoultrie@wlblaw.com - and - David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com CONSTRUCTOMICS LLC: Faces Artisan Suit Over Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- Artisan Kitchens, LLC d/b/a Artisans & Company, on behalf of itself and all other persons similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law Trusts of which Constructomics, LLC, is Trustee v. Constructomics, LLC, Trevor A. Prince and John Doe No. 1 through John Doe No. 5, Case No. 651688/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 30, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of contract, specifically by failing to pay $36,512.44 to Artisan for furnishing certain labor, materials, services and equipment necessary for the improvement of the property located at 20-41 45th Road, Long Island City, New York, 11105. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Aquino, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 692-1000 E-mail: jaaquino@duanemorris.com CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Philip E. Ashcraft and Christopher D. Gandara, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Core Laboratories LP d/b/a Protechnics, Core Laboratories LLC and John Kalika, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00823 (S.D. W.V., March 16, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Pro Technics provides laboratory analytics services to the petroleum industry including crude oil essays, liquid and ion- chromatography, mercury and arsenic trace analysis and ultralow sulphur and nitrogen detection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Goldner, Esq. Maria W. Hughes, Esq. HUGHES & GOLDNER, PLLC 10 Hale Street, Fifth Floor Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: (304) 400-4816 Fax: (304) 205-7729 Email: mark@wvemploymentrights.com maria@wvemploymentrights.com CORE CONSTRUCTION: "Delaney" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Cody D. Delaney, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Core Construction & Development, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00292 (E.D. Tex., March 29, 2016), seeks payment for all hours worked and overtime hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Core Construction & Development, Inc. is a commercial contractor. The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 1404 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: 903-596-7100 Fax: 469-533-1618 COSTA COFFEE: Accused of Under-Filling Latte Product in UK ---------------------------------------------------------- Anne Sewell, writing for Inquisitr, reports that Costa Coffee, the second largest coffee chain after Starbucks, has been accused of under-filling their latte product in the United Kingdom and has confessed. Costa Coffee, a popular coffee bar franchise, was recently accused of selling the regular amount of latte in their larger cups for 30p ($1) more. The company has now admitted this fact. It seems a couple of the most popular coffee outlets in the U.S. and the United Kingdom are under-serving their valued customers. The Inquisitr recently reported the story of a class-action lawsuit, launched against Starbucks for their less-than-full lattes. In that case, the coffee giant was under-filling cups by as much as 25 percent. However Starbucks was also accused of short-changing people with their espressos, after a regular client ran a video experiment with his own, well marked, shot glass. Now Costa Coffee is facing similar accusations in the United Kingdom, after they made a promotional statement: "When purchasing a large Costa Express drink you are receiving an extra shot of coffee and additional drink, compared to a regular size." It turns out that when purchasing the large drink, you are definitely getting a bigger cup, but no more coffee. Earlier in the week a London man, Paul Hopkinson, posted a video on Facebook -- which has since gone viral -- where he pours the entire contents of a large latte into a regular sized cup, without spilling a single drop. In the video Mr. Hopkinson explains that he and his colleagues had noticed they were paying more for their large coffee and wanted to find out exactly what they were getting for their money. Mr. Hopkinson bought his latte from a Costa Coffee self service machine and easily fitted it into a smaller cup, saying: "There you go, country of England, the regular and the large are indeed exactly the same size. Whoops Costa, oh dear." The video was reportedly posted by Hopkinson to Costa Coffee's Facebook page, a post which has, apparently, since been deleted. However, despite the fact it was taken down from the Costa page, the clip has received more than 12 million views, leaving the United Kingdom coffee giant a little explaining to do. As reported by the Irish Mirror, initially a spokesperson for Costa Coffee told Hopkinson in a response: "Despite what it looks like I can assure you you're not being duped in anyway." "The regular cup is a 12oz and the large is a 16oz so there is 4 fluid oz in size difference. "Plus you also get the extra shot of coffee, hence the price difference!" They added that for safety reasons, there is no way they would be able to fill the large cup that high, "as it would end up burning someone." Despite that, the company has now fessed up, and told Buzzfeed UK that while other coffee drinks they serve in the United Kingdom -- including the cappuccino and Americano -- do contain an additional shot, the large and regular lattes both only contain the regular two shots of coffee. According to a spokesman for Costa Coffee in the United Kingdom, the additional 30p ($1) is to cover the cost of an additional 4 fluid oz of milk instead, adding: "A large Costa Express latte is the only drink where both the large and regular has two shots." Mr. Hopkinson immediately updated his Facebook post saying he feels vindicated, but addressing the popular coffee giant as follows: "Dear Costa, I posted this to your page & you deleted it!?? When it hit 219,000 views!!!!!! You were commenting on the wall etc . . you deleted it? Why?? If there is nothing to hide? You don't delete other posts . . Is it because it got so many hits?" Of course, the Facebook post has had many more millions of views since then. When buying a latte from Costa Coffee in the United Kingdom it seems you must beware, unless you are happy to pay the extra money for more milk, not more coffee. CITIMORTGAGE INC: Florida Court Stays "Zia" Suit ------------------------------------------------ Judge Darrin P. Gayles granted CitiMortgage, Inc. and Citibank, N.A.'s motion to stay proceedings in the case captioned RIZVAN ZIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., and CITIBANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 15-23026-CIV-GAYLES (S.D. Fla.). Rizvan Zia filed a prospective class action seeking statutory damages, alleging that CitiMortgage and Citibank did not timely present certificates of discharge for his mortage, in violation of New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law section 1921 and Real Property Law section 275. The defendants requested that the court stay the proceedings pending the United State's Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015), on the question of "[w]hether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute." The defendants contended that if the Supreme Court anwers the question in the negative, such answer would likely dispose of the entire case. Judge Gayles concluded that a stay is warranted and thus granted the defendants' motion. The judge found that Zia has not shown that he would be unduly prejudiced or harmed by a short stay -- slightly more than three months -- of the proceedings. In contrast, Judge Gayles found that the defendants would be harmed if they were forced to engage in several more months of discovery, incurring additional expenses that could all be for naught depending on the Supreme Court's ruling. A full-text copy of Judge Gayles' March 22, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/PXhokNfrom Leagle.com. Rizvan Zia, Plaintiff, represented by D. Gregory Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan C. Zipperian, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Scott Rhead Shepherd, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP & Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac vice. CitiMortgage, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Defendant, represented by April Lynn Boyer -- april.boyer@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, Christopher S. Comstock -- ccomstock@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas V. Panoff -- tpanoff@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice & Yamilet Hurtado -- yamilet.hurtado@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP. DS HEALTHCARE: Sued in Fla. over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Dana W. Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DS Healthcare Group, Inc., Daniel Khesin, Renee Barchniles, and Mark Brockelman, Case No. 0:16-cv-60674-FAM (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. DS Healthcare Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries purportedly develop proprietary technologies and products for hair care and personal care needs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 206-6708 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Motion for Leave to Appeal Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals is fully submitted and awaiting a ruling from the appellate court. Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. "One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty," the Company said. "The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages." "On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal to include additional materials from the Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The motion was denied on March 5, 2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court on March 23, 2015. Oral argument on the appeal was held on October 28, 2015. On November 25, 2015, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the Second Class Actions. The plaintiffs have moved the appellate court for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. That motion is fully submitted and awaiting a ruling from the appellate court. Empire State is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust, or REIT, that owns, manages, operates, acquires and repositions office and retail properties in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area, including the Empire State Building, the world's most famous building. EXXON MOBIL: 3rd Amended Suit, Bid to Intervene Okayed in "Nolan" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned TONGA NOLAN, ET AL. v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, ET AL., Civil Action No. 13-439-JJB-EWD (M.D. La.), Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes granted the plaintiffs' second motion for leave of court to file a third supplemental and amending complaint and motion to intervene. On or about June 13, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a class action petition for damages against Exxon Mobil Corporation, alleging that the ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Facility repeatedly failed to meet regulatory standards resulting in numerous leaks causing personal injury and property damage. After filing a second restated and superseding class action complaint, the plaintiffs moved for class certification on November 17, 2014. This was denied by the court on May 13, 2015 based on the plaintiffs' failure to establish that common questions of law or fact predominated over individual questions of causation and damages. The plaintiffs then filed their first motion for leave of court to file a third supplemental and amending complaint, seeking to add more than 100 new plaintiffs by simply amending paragraph 1 of the second restated complaint to name them as plaintiffs. This was denied by the court without prejudice on June 5, 2015. On September 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for leave of court to file a third supplemental and amending complaint. On September 8, 2015, a motion to intervene was filed by 20 proposed intervenors, asserting that they "would have been members of the class for which certification was denied" and alleging that they were "employees of the Energy LA Station who were exposed on or about June 14-15, 2012. Despite the defendants' assertion that the plaintiffs' and proposed intervenors' exposure allegations "remain threadbare," Judge Wilder-Doomes found that the proposed supplemental and amending complaint and the proposed intervention complaint complied with the court's previous instruction to include specific allegations regarding each plaintiffs' exposure to a particular release, and provided the defendants with sufficient notice to outline each plaintiff's claim. Judge Wilder-Doomes also found that the proposed intervention was timely filed and that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) are satisfied. Thus, the judge permitted the proposed intervenors to intervene into the action by right. A full-text copy of Judge Doomes's March 23, 2016 ruling is available at http://is.gd/kTKyiTfrom Leagle.com. Lawrence J. Alexander, Mary T. George, Preston A. George, Sr., Joseph B. Eaglin, Flora H. Dupree, Gussie Johnson, Plaintiffs, Keisha L. Smith, Movant, represented by Ashley M. Liuzza, Smith Stag, L.L.C., Michael G. Stag, Smith Stag, LLC, Robert D. McMillin, Smith Stag, LLC,Sean Seton Cassidy, SmithStag, LLC, Stephen Wussow, Smith Stag, LLC &Stuart Housel Smith, Smith Stag, LLC. Plaintiff, represented by Ashley M. Liuzza, Smith Stag, L.L.C.,Michael G. Stag, Smith Stag, LLC, Robert D. McMillin, Smith Stag, LLC & Sean Seton Cassidy, SmithStag, LLC. Gussie Johnson, Individually and on behalf of her minor children Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Wussow, Smith Stag, LLC. Gussie Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Housel Smith, Smith Stag, LLC. Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, ExxonMobil Catalyst Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by James Conner Percy -- jpercy@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker, Andrew G. Phillips -- aphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice, Angela M. Spivey -- aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Kelly Beth Hapgood -- khapgood@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LP, pro hac vice, Lindsey Hargrove Raspino, McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald G. Franklin -- rfranklin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice & William D. Lampton -- wlampton@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker. John Nixon, Movant, Rebecca Anderson, Elizabeth Christopher, Dawn Farmer, Michael Franklin, Robin Gilton, Emery Jackson, Kenneth Johnson, Kevin LeBlanc, Cynthia Lockett, Travis Martin, Shawn Moton, Eula Ordoyne, Steven Reid, Dana Rohilliard, Sylvester Tilley, Raymond Verrette, Cassie Wade, Leo Washington, Charles Williamis, Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented by Donna Unkel Grodner -- info@grodnerlaw.com -- Grodner and Associates, APLC. FEDEX CORP: Faces "Abdallah" Suit for Alleged Violation of TCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- NAJEH ABDALLAH v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Case: 1:16-cv-03967 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2016), alleges that the Defendant placed unauthorized telephone calls to consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a provider of domestic and international package delivery services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com FLINT, MI: Another Water Crisis Community Meeting Held ------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Emery, writing for Mlive, reports that The Flint Water Class Action Team and Erin Brockovich was set to be holding another community meeting for Flint residents affected by the water crisis. The famed environmental activist Brockovich is joining the legal team, along with water expert Bob Bowcock at the Dort Federal Event Center, 3501 Lapeer Road in Flint. The community meeting was scheduled to be held on April on 5 from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. Previously the Flint Water Class Action Team held a meeting at the Northbank Center in downtown Flint as an informational meeting on class action lawsuits related to the city's water crisis. More than 300 people attended that meeting with dozens more turned away because there wasn't enough room. Ms. Brockovich has been speaking openly since mid-January 2015 on her Facebook page about the water situation in Flint. In February, 2015 she sent Mr. Bowcock to the city where he participated in a public demonstration for clean water. Mr. Bowcock also made recommendations in a Monday, Feb. 17, 2015 letter to Mayor Dayne Walling and the City Council. Those recommendations covered the water plant, distribution system, rates, and source water, and suggestions include discontinuing the practice of fluoridation, removing more organic material from Flint River water before chlorination, and taking at least one storage reservoir out of service. FUSION AUTOPLEX: "Allen" Suit Seeks Wage & Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Rodney Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fusion Autoplex LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00833 (S.D. Tex., March 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fusion Autoplex LLC is a used car dealership selling mostly high- end luxury vehicle. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Tel: (832) 778-8182 Fax: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com GREENE COUNTY, AL: Hospital Employees File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Gauntt, writing for WBRC, reports that a recently filed class action lawsuit claims Greene County hospital's CEO Elmore Patterson and the hospital's board took money out of employees' paychecks and used it to pay hospital bills, inflate wages and pay bonuses to upper management. "If they have a withdrawal for their state retirement, AFLAC insurance or some child support obligation they may have, they take the money out of employees check but it doesn't go to AFLAC, it doesn't go to the court system, they're using it to pay their own operating expenses with it," Jeff Smith, who represents one of the former hospital employees. Tuscaloosa attorney Jeff Smith filed the lawsuit on behalf of former employee Marilyn Atkins and others. Mr. Smith says once Atkins brought up the allegations to the hospital in October, she was fired. Mr. Smith said if employees bring up these allegations, they would be fired for suspicious reasons. "She presented that issue to the board and within one week she was fired for allegedly a no-call, no show which we feel very confident we can prove she actually called in that day," Mr. Smith said. The hospital has around 250 employees. Mr. Smith says the case is causing a lot of financial headaches right now for many people. Mr. Smith feels this has been going on for about a year. "This is the employees hard-earned money that they're basically getting an unsecured loan without the knowledge or consent of the employees and it's putting the employees at risk," Mr. Smith added. GURLEY MOTOR: Court Won't Offset Class Damages Awarded in "Yazzie" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge James A. Parker denied the defendants' request for offset in the case captioned EUGENE YAZZIE and PHYLLIS YAZZIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GURLEY MOTOR CO. and RED ROCK INVESTMENT CO., Defendants, No. CIV 14-555 JAP/SCY (D.N.M.). A class action lawsuit was filed on June 16, 2014 asserting, inter alia, that Red Rock Investment Co.'s standardized repossession practices violated the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). On March 8, 2016, the court determined that Red Rock's form "Notification Before Disposition of Collateral" violated the UCC and consequently, entered summary judgment on liability against Red Rock in favor of the plaintiffs and the UCC class that the court certified on October 30, 2015. The defendants filed a request for offset, alleging that "the proceeds received" from the sale of the class members' repossessed vehicles "were uniformly less than the amount which the [class members] owed to Red Rock" as the holder of the promissory note. Thus, the defendants maintained that each of these consumers continue to owe Red Rock money that should be "offset" against any class damages awarded under the UCC. Judge Parker found that, while styled as a "request for offset," the defendants' motion is actually asking the court to enter deficiency judgments, in various undetermined amounts, against each of the UCC class members. In denying the motion, the judge found that the defendants failed to show the existence of a recoverable deficiency as they have not presented proof of the fair market value of the repossession sales, and that further, the defendants have never asserted deficiency counterclaims on which the court can enter a judgment. A full-text copy of Judge Parker's March 22, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/j564J9from Leagle.com. Eugene Yazzie, Phyllis Yazzie, Plaintiffs, represented by Nicholas H. Mattison, Feferman & Warren & Richard N. Feferman, Feferman & Warren. Gurley Motor Co., Red Rock Investment Co, Defendants, represented by Mark D. Jarmie -- mjarmie@jarmielaw.com -- Jarmie & Associates. HALE & HEARTY SOUPS: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C. The case is captioned Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. #: 1:16-cv-02394 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, March 31, 2016). Hale & Hearty Soups operates restaurants in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Long Island. It offers soups, and soup-sandwich and soup-salad combos; fresh tossed-to-order salads with lettuce mix, salad toppings, salad dressings, bread/crackers, and ready-made salads; and gourmet sandwiches and wraps. The company also provides corporate catering services with soups, sandwiches, entree salads, breakfasts, specialty platters, and desserts for breakfasts, lunches, and special events. Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New York. The Plaintiff appears pro se. HALLIBURTON: Duncan Residents Set to Receive Settlement Payouts --------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Betancourt, writing for The Duncan Banner, reports that Duncanitesm, who according to their attorneys were exposed to water contaminated by Halliburton for almost 40 years, are set to start receiving settlements four years after a lawsuit was initiated. The plaintiffs are represented by Duncan Law Firm Leach and Sullivan and New York City Law Firm Weitz and Luxenberg. The case is heard by the Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Court documents state 65 of the 66 plaintiffs representing 44 of the 45 properties and represented by Leach & Sullivan have agreed, signed the necessary paperwork and finalized settlement. Fifty out of the 57 plaintiffs representing 44 of the 45 properties represented by Weitz & Luxenberg have done the same. "The status of the remaining three property claims (the golf course and commercial development properties); negotiations have continued for the two commercial properties," stated the documents. "No offer or counter has been made on the golf course since the last status report. The parties expect to have further negotiations on the two commercial properties before the next status report is due." David Page, an attorney with Leach and Sullivan who has been working on the case for four years, said the settlements were confidential but fair to his clients. "As lawyers for our clients, we are satisfied with the terms of the settlements," said Mr. Page. "We had 45 settlements that the lawyers had agreed to recommend to their clients. That represents 69 people." Halliburton Global Communications and Change Management Lead, Integration Team director of public relations Emily Mir said the company could not comment on the case due to the settlements not being finalized. "There have been settlements and a remediation plan is being developed in conjunction with regulatory authorities to address the environmental issues associated with the site, but there are still open items in the case so we cannot comment further at this time," she said. In order to remove the contaminants from the ground water, according to Mr. Page, the EPA and the Department of Environmental Quality ordered Halliburton to follow an extensive cleanup effort to rid the area of contaminants. "First they have to remove the contaminated soil . . . because every time it rains it leaks the contamination in the ground water again," he said. "Based on what (DEQ) required, (Halliburton) is taking out the most contaminated soil. The DEQ required Halliburton to stop the contaminated water from leaving the site by putting some trenches. Third they put in a pump system . . . to try to pump out the ground water, clean it . . . and dump the clean water into Cow Creek." Mr. Page said the settlements only pertaining to property cases as bodily injury and emotional distress cases were still pending litigation. Court documents showed Halliburton offered settlements for the emotional distress cases, but no response was received. According to court documents 21 plaintiffs remain and their claims include: 15 emotional distress claims, four property claims and two bodily injury claims. "We claim that one of our clients drank highly contaminated water, which caused her to get or get worse thyroid disease, which caused her to have her thyroid removed," said Mr. Page. "She had surgery and long-term -- 40 plus years -- symptoms like hair loss, itching skin, dry skin, depression, sadness and cold chills. Those are still being negotiated for potential settlement. I can't talk about where we are on the settlements on that." Court documents showed the 21 remaining plaintiffs are scheduled for a jury trial in August pending filed motions and other court matters. "Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (HESI) has requested that discovery plaintiffs with emotional distress and bodily injury claims update their discovery responses, and in particular, their medical records," stated the documents. "HESI and Plaintiffs have agreed to a proposed pretrial schedule for any claims tried on the August 2016 trial docket, but have been unable to reach agreement on other pretrial issues, including trial plaintiff selection." The case is being heard as a class action lawsuit, which allows others affected to join the suit. "The (class action lawsuit) people are coming into our office and signing up with us," said Mr. Page. "We're on the middle of negotiations with those. There will probably be about 80 new properties that will be added for negotiations for settlement. We are in discussions with Halliburton at this time. There might be new cases filed or there will be amendments to the class suit filed." Mr. Page said the added cases represent almost all of the people affected by the contamination. "All the small residential properties," he said. "There's no more commercial big properties and no more personal injuries. Residential and some small agricultural are all in that (new) group. We have tried our very best to identify and give people who are affected, the opportunity to come in and be represented. We tried very hard. I can't guarantee, we've had the chance to talk to everybody. If (there's more people affected) they can call and make and appointment with me and I'll be happy to sit down and discuss if we can help them or not." In 2011 water quality tests showed a positive result for ammonium perchlorate -- a toxic salt mineral known to be used in fireworks and explosives and as missile fuel. The ammonium perchlorate was found in the north section of Duncan where an old Halliburton location was used as a place to conduct removal of spent missile fuel since 1976. The process released the ammonium perchlorate compound into the groundwater and into private water wells. According to the United State Environmental Protection Agency, perchlorate is highly soluble and "high doses of perchlorate can result in the decrease of body weight" and "cause hypertrophy of the thyroid gland." The EPA has also taken up monitoring perchlorate levels under the Safe Drinking Water Act and "has initiated the process of proposing a national primary drinking water regulation." HARTFORD ACCIDENT: "O'Brien" Suit Stays in D. Montana ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles C. Lovell denied Diane O'Brien's motion to remand the case captioned DIANE O'BRIEN, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, and KNAPP INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a Montana Corporation, Defendants, No. CV 15-14-H-CCL (D. Mont.). O'Brien brought the putative class action against both the defendant insurance companies, which have a principal place of business and a state of incorporation outside of Montana, and also against the Knapp Insurance Agency, Inc., which is a Montana corporation, arising from the insurance companies' practice of requiring homeowners to purchase personal property coverage at a value of 75% of their dwellings, whether or not their personal property actually justifies that valuation. O'Brien alleged that to the extent that she is paying a premium for personal property coverage in excess of her needs, the insurance policy is illusory and violates Montana insurance laws and public policy. The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on the court's original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Although O'Brien agrees that the class action has more than 100 putative class members, she denied that removal is proper under CAFA, contending that minimal diversity is lacking and less than $5 million is in controversy. Judge Lovell, however, found that the defendants have demonstrated by a preponderance that the value of the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million and that the "home-state exception" to removal jurisdiction does not apply to this case because it is the insurance companies, not the Knapp Agency, that are clearly the primary defendants in this case. A full-text copy of Judge Lovell's March 22, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/XAsDinfrom Leagle.com. Diane O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Lerner, LERNER LAW FIRM,John M. Morrison -- john@mswdlaw.com -- MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP &Michael A. Viscomi, VISCOMI & GERSH. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford, Sentinel Insurance Company, LTD, Trumbull Insurance Company, Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Knapp Insurance Agency, Defendants, represented by Peter F. Habein -- phabein@crowleyfleck.com -- CROWLEY FLECK PLLP. IDAHO: Ordered to Safeguard People with Disabilities ---------------------------------------------------- Morgan Boydston, writing for KTVB, reports that a federal court ruling mandates protections for some of Idaho's most vulnerable. The ACLU of Idaho brought a class action lawsuit against the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about four years ago. A critical part of that case has been won -- a significant decision for Idahoans with developmental disabilities. Close to 4,000 adults with disabilities may now see big changes in the way they receive Medicaid benefits in Idaho. "When it comes to children, the elderly and the disabled, we just need to do it right," Dellrae Warner, mother of the main plaintiff in the case, said. With this ruling, the state is now required to create a plan that will further safeguard people who are part of Idaho's Developmental Disabilities Waiver Program, administered by IDHW. "I truly believe that this was a victory for the whole state," Warner told KTVB. Kyle Warner is one of thousands of adults with developmental disabilities who live with family or on their own so they can have a better quality of life than they would in a state institution. "They said Kyle would never walk, talk, see or hear. They pretty much wrote him off as being a vegetable," Mr. Warner said. But at 34 years old, Kyle can walk, see and hear; however, he does suffer from chronic seizures and is completely non-verbal. "He needs day and night care," Mr. Warner added. The family has to pay for 24/7 in-home care for Kyle. On the $22,000 per year Medicaid budget they were receiving, it became extremely difficult to do that. Because of the endless stress and pressure that came along with appealing their insufficient budget each year, the Warners joined in the class-action lawsuit with the ACLU of Idaho. "For many this is a life and death situation," sai ACLU of Idaho Executive Director Leo Morales. The lawsuit argued that IDHW cut Medicaid participants' assistance without adequate notification or protections. Mr. Morales says the judge ruled the plaintiffs' due process rights were violated and ordered remedies. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is mandated to set up a plan in the next 90 days to ensure that these individuals have someone that can support them through the appeal process. "It's a very vulnerable community. If they don't have the right assistance it makes it far more difficult for them to actually appeal their case," Mr. Morales added. The decision ordered that the Medicaid budget tool needs to be more accurate to calculate how much money participants receive. In addition, information that was denied to them needs to be more accessible. "With the decision there needs to be a lot more transparency and more access to that information so that if an individual wants to challenge the amount of dollars they're receiving, now they will actually have access to that information," Mr. Morales said. KTVB reached out IDHW for an interview, and they sent us this written statement: "We are still studying the case, but are very happy that the ruling dismissed unwarranted claims that the state was discriminating against our Medicaid participants. We are dedicated to helping participants with disabilities live independently in our communities. We look forward to working with them and their advocates to resolve the remaining issues so we can move forward with a system that supports participants and is fair to Idaho taxpayers." The ACLU of Idaho says the fight still is not over: there are ongoing parts of this issue that still need to be taken care of. IGT: Class Action Over DoubleDown Social Casino Site Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Barlowe, writing for Casino.org, reports that IGT's DoubleDown multiplatform social casino site has survived a class action lawsuit attempt from a disgruntled Illinois customer who claimed that the free gaming platform offers "nothing more than camouflaged unlawful games of chance." Plaintiff Margo Phillips blew $1,000 in real money on virtual, value-less chips on the site before deciding she wanted to claw back every play cent. Ms. Phillips claimed that because DoubleDown uses "gambling mechanics" in its games, it is tantamount to actual gambling. Well, except for real money being involved, but other than that. In a class action lawsuit filed at the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Ms. Phillips said she wanted the DoubleDown site to be shut down and money refunded to customers in Illinois. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all citizens of the state who had lost over $50 playing at DoubleDown, under the antiquated Illinois Loss Recovery Act (ILRA). Claw-back Law Dragged Up The 19th century law states that any Illinois gambler who loses $50 or more has the right to sue the winner to get the money back. It also states that should the losing gambler not sue the winner within sixth months, then "any person" is permitted to sue on behalf of all losers, for up to three times the amount. The law was originally designed to protect destitute families who'd had their last dollar stolen by relatives, which was subsequently gambled away. Ms. Phillips says she began playing on DoubleDown in January of 2013, and soon began purchasing virtual (and value-less) chips with real money, once she had played through the original supply of free chips. Because she paid for the chips, she argues, they had a monetary value, just like chips purchased in a casino, and therefore the services offered by DoubleDown were tantamount to illegal gambling. According to Ms. Phillips, as well as ILRA, DoubleDown was in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and was guilty of unjustly enriching itself through the use of "gambling devices," another no-no under Illinois state law. The filing would have had to establish that online social casino games can be defined as "gambling devices," and that IGT had procured money from the plaintiff in an illegal manner. Define "Gambling" But the judge, unlike Ms. Phillips, wasn't buying any of it. Judge Edmond Chang noted that ILRA requires a winner and a loser from the outcome of a gambling proposition. Because virtual chips bought from DoubleDown cannot be cashed in for real money, the social casino site cannot lose anything from the proposition, and so Phillips was on shaky ground. In fact, broadly speaking, Ms. Phillips was asking the court to reconsider the very definition of gambling as it's construed in pretty much every state in the US: namely, the proposition that something of value is risked upon the outcome of an event or game that is subject to chance in the hope of receiving something else of equal or greater value. While paying for virtual chips constitutes a financial stake, with no financial reward involved, no form of gambling has occurred, by any legal definition, at least. In fact, one could say that Ms. Phillip's decision to sue DoubleDown is a far better example of gambling than anything that happens on the social casino site. And in this case, it was a losing bet. IPS ENGINEERING: Glencoe Residents Win Fire Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Tim Ahrens, writing for Stillwater News Press, reports that some residents of Glencoe got a little peace of mind on Feb. 24, winning a class-action lawsuit in the August 2012 fire that destroyed 53 Payne County homes. More than a month ago, a jury decided that IPS Engineering L.L.C. was responsible for 30 percent of the damage the wildfire caused, and Global Pipeline Construction LLC was responsible for the other 70 percent. IPS Engineering was instructed to pay $1 million in punitive damages, and Global Pipeline Construction was fined $100,000. That was in addition to a combined $6.5 million the two companies were ordered to pay to 72 plaintiffs after company employees continued to weld despite a statewide burn ban had been issued the day before. "I think the town, a lot of people were pretty happy with the outcome of it," Glencoe firefighter Jeremy Cooper said. "The way things transpired at first, stories got changed . . . there were a lot of people really happy." The fire burned more than 2,000 acres and caused the Glencoe residents to evacuate their homes on Aug. 4, 2012. An Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management reported cited 63 Payne County homes being damaged and 53 destroyed at the time. "I was at work when the call came in," Mr. Cooper said. "I looked outside and could only think, 'Oh no.' It looked very large. So I responded, and that's when we figured out real quick we wouldn't be able to stop it on our own so we started calling in resources. "I don't even remember, I would venture to say 15 to 20 (departments responded). About 60 to 70 residents rurally were affected by it -- not that actually burned, but had to get out of their homes." Although Glencoe residents were evacuated, they were lucky that the fire didn't take more away from the community. The Stillwater Fire Marshal at the time of the fire, Trent Hawkins, told the Stillwater News Press in a 2012 interview that heavy winds and high temperatures were working against firefighters. The winds exceeded 20 mph, and the 107-degree temperature marked the 20th straight day of triple-digit temperatures. Mr. Cooper said a shift in wind direction hit as the fire neared city limits, directing the fire away from greater damage to Glencoe. Mr. Cooper said some parts of the burned acreage looks untouched by flames, while other areas look as if the fire just occurred. Regardless of landscaping, the fire left an everlasting mark on residents. "There was a big section of it that was cedar trees, all you see now is the skeletons of those cedar trees," Mr. Cooper said. "We lost a couple of landmarks around the area, old barns that had been there for years and years. It's kinda hard to see (them) go. "It opened a lot of rural people's eyes to fire, and we still get a lot of people who are skittish to smoke. We get a lot of calls to fires that nobody has actually seen the fire, just smoke, and it scares them." Mr. Cooper recalled how personal the fire was at the time, as he and other firefighters were dealing with people they knew in greater danger than previous fires had posed. "When you're directly dealing with people you know and family, it makes it hard," Mr. Cooper said. "Also on that same note, we knew we saved several people's houses that we knew and that made the difference." JAMES CRAIG BAIR: Faces "Moreno" Suit in Col. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against James Craig Bair Ranch Co. The case is captioned Pines Vivas Moreno, Gerson Salvatierra Hinostroza, and Jesus Salvatierra Hinostroza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. James Craig Bair Ranch Co., Bair Bros Sheep Co., LLC, High Canyon Adventures, LLC, James Craig Bair I, Doris Bair, James Craig Bair II, Jeff Bair, Jason Bair, and Western Range Association, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00752 (D. Col., March 31, 2016). Bair Bros Sheep Co is a sheep raising farm located in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarah J. Parady, Esq. Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq. Jenifer C. Rodriguez, Esq. COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES 1725 High Street, Suite 1 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 593 2595 Facsimile: (303) 502 9119 E-mail: sarah@lowrey-parady.com jrodriguez@colegalserv.org KRAFT HEINZ: Violated UCL & CLRA, "Mattley" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Mattley, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01616 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2016), seeks to recover damages, equitable relief and/or disgorgement due to Kraft's misleading and improper marketing of its Kraft-branded Parmesan cheese under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business and Professions Code, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and California Civil Code. The Defendant allegedly markets and advertises the Products as containing "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese," in oversize bold print that covers practically the entire face of the Product's container. However, as Kraft is well aware, the Products contain cellulose, a filler. Kraft Heinz Foods produces and markets food products in the United States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces, condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea & Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names; and tomato and vegetable-based snacks, prepared meals, frozen potatoes, frozen snacks and entrees, and other products under the brand names of Heinz, Quero, ABC, Ore-Ida, Bagel Bites, T.G.I. Friday's, Smart Ones, and Weight Watchers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682 5340 Facsimile: (212) 884 0988 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com LIBERTY SILVER: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Bobby Genovese ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicki Gorny, writing for Ocala.com, reports that a South Florida judge dismissed a complaint accusing Bobby Genovese, an international businessman who resides part time in Marion County, and others of swindling stock market investors through a "pump- and-dump" scheme. The premise of the complaint was that Mr. Genovese and his co- defendants -- William Tafuri, Geoffrey Brown, BG Capital Group Ltd., Look Back Investments Inc. and Liberty Silver Corp. -- planted misleading statements about Liberty Silver's stock in order to artificially "pump" up prices and then "dump" their own shares at a major profit. Filing their complaint in federal court in 2013, the plaintiffs argued that this scheme violated the Securities Exchange Act and left them with major losses. The dismissal of the claims came days after U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp ruled that the case did not qualify for class certification. As a factor in this ruling, Mr. Ryskamp found "there was no cause and effect relationship between the disclosure of information and price movements of the Liberty Silver stock." "I'm incredibly excited," Mr. Genovese said, "knowing from the very beginning that there was no fraud, neither from the board of directors of (Liberty Silver) or from myself personally." "In the end, I was proven to be correct," he added later. Mr. Ryskamp's ruling on class certification, denying class-action status to the plaintiffs, largely relied on a report prepared by Gregg Jarrell for the defendants. While the plaintiffs had in part argued that a fraudulent scheme would merit class-action status, Mr. Jarrell's report challenged this argument by suggesting there was no fraud on which they could base that claim. LOS ANGELES, CA: Ex-Undersheriff Testifies in Jail Abuse Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- 89.3 KPCC reports that former Los Angeles County Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, now on trial in federal court in downtown L.A., took the witness stand on April 1 to deny accusations that he obstructed an FBI investigation into deputy misconduct in the jails. Mr. Tanaka, the former second-in-command, is charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy in a sweeping federal investigation into abuses and corruption in L.A.'s jail system. Federal prosecutors have accused Mr. Tanaka of masterminding a plot to thwart the FBI's investigation into the jails -- largely by moving a jail information from jail to jail to keep him away from investigators. They've also accused Mr. Tanaka of creating a culture of violence in jails and turning a blind eye to deputy misconduct. Eight former department employees have already been convicted for their roles in the case. Mr. Tanaka's ex-boss, former Sheriff Lee Baca, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators and will be sentenced next month. Mr. Tanaka testified for nearly three hours in what was the main event of the day, according to Celeste Fremon of Witness L.A., who's been following the trial. The prosecution rested on April 1 after a week and a half of testimony on Tanaka's alleged crimes. Tanaka answered questions trying to dismantle the structure of the prosecution's arguments Friday, Ms. Fremon said. The judge began to allow cross-examination, but when prosecutor Brandon Fox started to ask about Mr. Tanaka's involvement with the deputy gang known as the Vikings, the defense objected. The judge ultimately told everyone to come back with briefs on why that line of questioning should be allowed. While the Vikings aren't directly related to this case, Mr. Tanaka has allegedly been a member for many years of the deputy gang that made news in the 1990s and was part of a class- action lawsuit, Ms. Fremon said. The reason for the question, Ms. Fremon said, was that it speaks to what the government is calling the context of Tanaka's alleged style of supervision as undersheriff. Ms. Fremon said that if the line of questioning about the Vikings is allowed into the trial, "[We'll] certainly have a more theatrical trial, and it's been pretty theatrical as it is." Many say that Mr. Tanaka functioned behind the scenes as a "shadow sheriff," Ms. Fremon said, with the suggestion that he was in control and willing to push deputies to be aggressive in enforcement. That includes both in the jails and on patrol, as well as potentially even pushing deputies to step over the legal line, Ms. Fremon said. The defense appears to have opened up the door for this line of questioning in the way that they defended Tanaka's character, according to Ms. Fremon. This isn't Mr. Tanaka's first time on the witness stand. He testified in the trial of a former deputy accused of interfering with the FBI's investigation into deputy misconduct in the jails. However, before he was running for sheriff before and had what seemed to be a bright future, while now he faces up to 15 years in prison, Ms. Fremon said. He appeared bright and quick on his feet, but you could see the stress in his face, according to Ms. Fremon. Mr. Tanaka said that he wasn't the one who came up with the idea of hiding the witness and that the sheriff was the one obsessed with the operation, but that it was also allegedly for the witness's own safety according to the defense, Ms. Fremon said, rather than keeping the witness from federal handlers. LUXURY SUITES: Court Rules on Sinanyan's Discovery Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned ALICE SINANYAN, an individual; et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUXURY SUITES INTERNATIONAL, LLC; et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-225-GMN-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge Cam Ferenbach granted in part and denied in part Alice Sinanyan's motion to compel JAB Affiliates, LLC to produce responsive documents and provide adequate responses to her interrogatories and requests for admission (RFA). Sinanyan proposed to represent a class of condominium owners against JAB and other defendants, alleging that the defendants wrongfully withheld the plaintiffs' shares of rental income from condominium units located in the Signature at the MGM Grand development. Sinanyan served discovery requests on JAB and thereafter, filed the motion to compel. The following matters were at issue in Sinanyan's motion: (1) seven of Sinanyan's requests for production (RFP), (2) two of Sinanyan's interrogatories, and (3) three of Sinanyan's RFAs. Granting in part and denying in part Sinanyan's motion to compel, Judge Ferenbach ordered as follows: -- that JAB's vague and ambiguous objection to RFP 20 is sustained, and JAB is not required to produce documents responsive to RFP 20. -- that all other objections to Sinanyan's RFPs are overruled, and JAB must produce on or before April 15, 2016, documents responsive to RFPs 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 21 or provide a declaration that explains its efforts to search for responsive documents, for instances where no responsive documents were located. -- that JAB's objections to Interrogatories 2 and 3 are overruled, and JAB must supplement its responses to Interrogatories 2 and 3 on or before April 15, 2016. -- that JAB's objections to RFAs 7, 9, and 11 are overruled, and JAB must serve supplemental answers to RFAs 7, 9, and 11 on or before April 15, 2016. A full-text copy of Judge Ferenbach's March 23, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/6NQKWGfrom Leagle.com. Alice Sinanyan, James Koury, Sehak Tuna, Plaintiff, represented by Don Springmeyer -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones -- jjones@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Royi Moas -- rmoas@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP. Luxury Suites International, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy R Lancaster, Law Offices of Gary P. Sinkeldam APC, Erin L. Plunkett, Law Office of Douglas R Johnson, Gary Sinkeldam, Law Office of Gary P. Sinkeldam, John Scott Burris -- j.scott.burris@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker & Reuben H Cawley -- reuben.cawley@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. Jab Affiliates, LLC dba Las Vegas Suites, Defendant, represented by Kevin E Beck, Beck Pingel & Steven R Dunn, Dunn Firm, P.C.. JetLiving Hotels, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Legolvan -- alegolvan@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees & Craig J. Mariam -- cmariam@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP. MARATHON PETROLEUM: Stipulation to Dismiss Merger Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has approved a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss all claims with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit related to the MarkWest merger. In July 2015, a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims challenging the MarkWest Merger was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by a purported unitholder of MarkWest. In August 2015, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by plaintiffs who purport to be unitholders of MarkWest. On September 9, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into one action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, now captioned In re MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the individual members of the board of directors of MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. (the "MarkWest GP Board"), MPLX, MPLX GP LLC, the general partner of MPLX ("MPLX GP") MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MPLX, asserting in connection with the MarkWest Merger and related disclosures that, among other things, (i) the MarkWest GP Board breached its duties in approving the MarkWest Merger with MPLX and (ii) MPC, MPLX, MPLX GP, and Sapphire Holdco LLC aided and abetted such breaches. On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss all claims with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs, but for the Court to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for a mootness fee by the plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. "We intend to vigorously defend against any application for a mootness fee and do not expect the resolution of such matter to have a material adverse effect," the Company said. Marathon Petroleum Corporation operates an independent petroleum product refining, marketing, retail and transportation business in the United States and the largest east of the Mississippi. The Company merged with MPLX LP ("MPLX"), the midstream master limited partnership sponsored by MPC, and MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. ("MarkWest") effective December 4, 2015 (the "MarkWest Merger"). MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL: Settles Nurse Case Manager's OT Wage Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Halstead, writing for Marin Independent Journal, reports that Marin General Hospital and Sutter Health Corp. have agreed as part of a court settlement to pay $850,000 to an estimated 47 current and former nurse case managers to compensate them for unpaid overtime and failing to pay all wages due at time of termination. Marin General will pay the bulk of the settlement, $750,000, while Sutter Health will pay $100,000. That is because the settlement applies to nurse case managers who worked at Marin General from March 14, 2010 through March 1, 2016. Sutter Health turned over management of the hospital to Marin General Hospital Corp. in July 2010. "Marin General Hospital acts lawfully at all times and in this case, we chose to forego the time and expense of further litigation by settling these claims," Jamie Maites, a spokeswoman for Marin General, said by email in response to an Independent Journal inquiry. Also responding by email, Bill Gleeson, a spokesman for Sutter Health, said, "Rather than litigate for years, Sutter decided to contribute $100,000 toward the voluntary resolution of the matter. The court's order does not make any findings on the merits of the case, and Sutter denies any wrongdoing or liability." The plaintiff's co-counsel, Robert Jaret of San Rafael, said that nearly all of the 30 nurse case managers that he and co-counsel Arthur Siegel of San Francisco are representing in the class action no longer work for Marin General. Nurse case managers, who coordinate all aspects of a patient's care including their discharge, have taken on an even more pivotal role since passage of the Affordable Care Act. Under health care reform, hospitals are financially rewarded for eliminating unnecessary tests and treatment, if they can do so while maintaining good patient outcomes. Two of the nurse case managers named as class representatives in the settlement -- Sharon Reid and Ching Redmon -- filed a separate suit in March 2014 that also included allegations of retaliation by Marin General managers for complaints the nurses registered regarding patient care and nurse safety. According to the suit, the two nurse case managers complained about staffing shortages and deficiencies in the hospital's facilities that were causing worker injuries. The suit alleged that the nurses' concerns were ignored by their supervisors, and that the nurses were admonished and labeled as troublemakers by management. The suit states that when Ms. Reid and Ms. Redmon notified the hospital's human resources department regarding the retaliation nothing was done to protect them. And the suit alleges that eventually Ms. Reid and Ms. Redmon quit their jobs "because of the intolerable working conditions." Ms. Maites said, "Marin General Hospital always encourages our employees to raise health and safety issues with us, and we do not retaliate against any employee for doing so -- in fact, we appreciate it." In addition, she said, "Taking care of our employees is one of our highest priorities. Since our Safe Patient Handling Program launched, the average annual number of patient handling claims has decreased by 38 percent." Mr. Jaret said, "They (Reid and Redmon) settled their individual claims separately, and it's a confidential settlement agreement; but their wage and hours claims are being paid through the class action." Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay "non- exempt" employees one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay when they work more than 40 hours a week. According to the suit filed by Mr. Jaret, the nurse case managers he is representing sometimes worked more than 12 hours a day, and seven or more consecutive days in a work week, without being paid overtime. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay "non- exempt" employees one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay when they work more than 40 hours a week. But until Marin General reclassified its nurse case managers in June 2013, they were classified as "exempt" and therefore didn't qualify for overtime pay. Ms. Maites said, "For decades, we have treated our nurse case managers as professional, salaried employees, and have chosen to pay our nurses near the top percentile nationally. Three years ago we voluntarily granted those employees' request to be paid daily and weekly overtime, following the example set by other area hospitals that had also done so." Mr. Jaret, however, said that the hospital reclassified the nurse managers in 2013 indicates it knew it had a problem. He said the nurse case managers don't perform the kind of administrative or managerial functions that would allow the hospital to qualify them as exempt. MASTEC INC: Court Scheduled March 2017 Trial in "Wrigley" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., the District Court has scheduled a two-week trial period beginning on March 20, 2017 pending its ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss. On May 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"), Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jose R. Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer, George L. Pita, as defendants. On August 5, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed on October 13, 2015. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained in, or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's filings with the SEC and other statements, in each case with respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the Audit Committee's independent internal investigation. The amended complaint seeks damages stemming from losses Plaintiffs claim to have suffered as a result of purchasing Company securities at an allegedly inflated market price. On December 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs responded to the Company's motion to dismiss. The District Court also scheduled a two-week trial period beginning on March 20, 2017 pending its ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. Mastec is an infrastructure construction company operating mainly throughout North America across a range of industries. MAXIMUM IDENTITY: Faces New Diamond Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Maximum Identity Company. The case is captioned New Diamond Cafe LLC and Ji Soo Choe v. Maximum Identity Company, Case No. 651682/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 31, 2016). Maximum Identity Company operates an insurance company duly formed and existing under the laws of Delaware and regularly transacts business in the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan M. First, Esq. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2701 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 683-8055 MERRILL LYNCH: Aug. 29 Final Approval Hearing in "Davis" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case captioned BENJAMIN E. DAVIS and ROBERTO F. GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-175-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.). The parties have filed an application for an order approving their Stipulation of Settlement dated February 8, 2016, which set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and for dismissal of the case with prejudice. Judge Conrad found that the proposed settlement falls within the range of reasonableness and therefore meets the requirements for preliminary approval. The judge also conditionally certified the proposed class, for settlement purposes only, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs Benjamin E. Davis and Roberto F. Garcia were appointed as class representatives. Michael S. Taaffe, Jarrod J. Malone, and Michael D. Bressan from the law firm of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP were appointed as class counsel. Rust Consulting, Inc. was appointed to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims. A final approval hearing shall be held on August 29, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., at the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 401 West Trade Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202. A full-text copy of Judge Conrad's March 22, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/YM1IWIfrom Leagle.com. USA, Plaintiff, represented by C. Nicks Williams, U.S. Attorney's Office. MI BELLA: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Miguel" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Barbara Mendez Miguel, individually and on behalf of all other collective persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mi Bella Puebla Corp., Antolin Teutle, and John Does 1-10, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01593-SJ-RER, (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Defendants operate a deli/grocery/restaurant business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sang J. Sim, Esq. PARK & SIM LAW GROUP LLP 39-01 Main Street, Suite 608 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 445 1300 Facsimile: (718) 445 8616 E-mail: petersimesq@yahoo.com MIAMI BOOMERS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Damages, OT Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Yoagny Bernal Lopez and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Miami Boomers Corp. d/b/a Ciboney Restaurant and Lounge, Orestes Perez, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21160-MGC (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, double damages, reasonable attorney fees, court costs, interest, and any other relief from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants operate restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. Attorney For Plaintiff 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM MIAMI JEWELRY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Rodriguez and other similarly situated individuals v. Miami Jewelry Exchange Corporation d/b/a International Jewelry Center, Mani Aminov, and Abram Aminov, Case No. 1:16-cv- 21118-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a jewelry shop in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, Florida 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Labin" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- Rachel Labin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01564 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, March 30, 2016). Midland Credit Management provides debt collections and information management services. It collects on credit cards, automobiles, unsecured consumer debts, and telecom accounts. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. The Plaintiff appears pro se. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Moutauakil" Suit E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ Ahmed El Moutauakil, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Encore Capital Group, Inc., and Asset Acceptance, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01565 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, March 30, 2016). Midland Credit Management provides debt collections and information management services. It collects on credit cards, automobiles, unsecured consumer debts, and telecom accounts. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MIDLAND FUNDING: "Walkabout" Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------- Judge Vicki Miles-Lagrange granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the case captioned LORI WALKABOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. CIV-14-939-M (W.D. Okla.). Lori Walkabout filed an action individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers, alleging that Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and that the defendants' repeated violations of the FDCPA entitles her to maintain a negligent per se cause of action against them. The defendants moved to dismiss Walkabout's amended complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Judge Miles-Lagrange found that the FDCPA's statute of limitations does not bar Walkabout's FDCPA claim. However, while Judge Miles- Lagrange found that Walkabout has sufficiently pled facts that would allow the court to infer that HSBC waived its right to charge interest on her debt, Walkabout did not allege that in waiving its right to charge interest, HSBC actually changed or set the contractual rate of interest to zero. Thus, Judge Miles- Lagrange concluded that the defendants had a statutory right to charge interest on Walkabout's debt once it acquired it from HSBC. Acccordingly, Walkabout's amended complaint was dismissed for failing to sufficiently allege facts that the defendants violated the FDCPA when they charged the statutory rate of interest on Walkabout's debt. A full-text copy of Judge Miles-Lagrange's March 22, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/PPaF9rfrom Leagle.com. Lori Walkabout, individually, Lori Walkabout, Plaintiffs, represented by M Kathi Rawls, Rawls Law Office PLC, Daniel A Edelman, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Francis R Greene, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Minal Gahlot, Rawls Law Office PLC. Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management Inc, Defendants, represented by Jon E Brightmire -- jbrightmire@dsda.com -- Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson. MILLER ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Amid Bankruptcy ------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Marcum, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that the bankruptcy case for former Knoxville-based company Miller Energy Resources came to a close, with the company reorganized into separate entities, its stock declared void and a plan in place to issue new common stock. Meanwhile, Miller Energy is facing a lawsuit by shareholders seeking class-action status for all purchasers of certain Miller preferred shares. March 29 was the date for a reorganization plan approved by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Anchorage, Alaska, for Miller Energy to take effect. Under the plan, the company will establish a new board of directors empowered to adopt any agreements or documents, or take any actions outlined in the plan. The company will continue but as separate entities represented by its 11 subsidiaries. In March 29 filings with the Security and Exchange Commission, the company reported that under the agreement with the court, all shares of Miller Energy common stock and other equity and securities are terminated. In a form 8-K filing, the company said that the reorganized company had secured up to $20 million in exit financing with Apollo Investment Corp., plus an extra $20 million in incremental term loan financing. Also on March 29, the reorganized company issued 10 million shares of new common stock, at $0.0001 per share to the secured lenders. Apollo Investment Corp. and other investment funds managed by Highbridge Principal Strategies hold 100 percent of the new notes and new common stock, and therefore control the company, according to the 8-K filing. Don Dimitrievich and Jeffery Fitts, both of Highbridge, were named directors of the new board. Also on the March 29 date, Scott M. Boruff, Bob G. Gower, Gerald Hannahs and A. Haag Sherman departed the company's board of directors. Court documents show some of Miller Energy's creditors objected to the reorganization plan. Creditors John and Tami Belies of Huntington Beach, Calif., asked Judge Gary Spraker to approve an alternate plan that would provide recovery of their $60,000 investment. "We had been officially advised that preferred stocks are very secure," the couple wrote. "We put a very large portion of our Roth IRA (Retirement account) and regular account into these two stocks." Shareholder Darren McCammon, of Reno, Nev., also objected to the reorganization plan. "In my opinion, there is substantially more value in Miller than the board and the senior debt holder, Apollo Investment Corporation, are trying to portray, and the board of Miller Energy did not adequately represent shareholder interests in this matter," he wrote the judge. Judge Spraker wrote in his order that nothing in the plan or his order would preclude shareholders from pursuing the shareholders lawsuit filed against Miller Energy. MOST WORSHIPFUL: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Amaro, writing for WTLV, reports that Walter Hammond, a Mason since 1961, is fighting to restore his membership and to change an 1893 law that allows racial discrimination. It was a dark hidden secret in an already secretive fraternity, until now. "I felt like that is not right," says Mr. Hammond. "It did surprise me," says Mr. Hammond. "To me, it runs against the principles of free masonry where we all are in the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God." Attorney Kevin Sanders represents Mr. Hammond. "You're looking at about 13 million people that are disenfranchised by Florida Statute," says Mr. Sanders, "under this law that they cannot be a part." Mr. Sanders discovered the 123-year-old Jim Crow law while preparing his case to restore Hammond's membership. "This statute has not been repealed, this statute has not been overturned," he says. "As far as I know, this is the first time this statute has been challenged for its unconstitutionality." He's asking the courts to make it null and void not just for Mr. Hammond, but for everyone. "I'm asking the courts to make it a class action,' said Mr. Sanders. He's confident they can win, but first they have to clear a hurdle of motions to stop the suit from moving forward. "Kevin thinks we're going to win the case, I hope we do," says Mr. Hammond. The law, Chapter 4281 of the Florida Statues, incorporates the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida. And the language reads, "consisting of Masons exclusively of the white race." Grand Secretary Richard Lynn says they are aware of the Jim Crow Law and, in 1993, one hundred years later, the Lodge approved a Declaration of Principles to, as he said, negate the 1893 law. It reads, in part: "The Digest of Masonic Law of Florida does not authorize a member of a particular lodge to object to the petition for membership to receive the Three Degrees of masonry, or to visitation by an otherwise qualified visiting Mason, if the objection is based upon the grounds of race, creed, color . . . . . . Such objections are illegal under the State and Federal law and Masons are bound to abide by such laws." Lynn says they would agree to have the language removed from the 1893 law, but they're against dissolving the corporation to accomplish the change. He says such a move would impact the organization financially. The case has been filed in Federal Court and goes to trial in November. NARCONON OF NORTHERN CALIF: "Burgoon" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Burgoon, Caleb Landers, Connie L. Rana, and Jamie Kerzner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Narconon of Northern California, doing business as: Narconon Redwood Cliffs, Halcyon Horizons, a California corporation, Narconon Fresh Start, a California corporation, Association for Better Living and Education International, a California corporation, Narconon Western United States, a California corporation, Narconon International a California corporation, and Halcyon Horizons, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2016), Case No. 3:15-cv-01381, was transferred from US District Court for the Northern District of California, to US District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02182-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The assigned Presiding Judge is Hon. Judge George H. Wu. Narconon of Northern California is a Drug Rehabilitation Center in California. It is a full-service drug rehabilitation center and a community resource for drug related problems. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adrienne D McEntee, Esq. Mary B Reiten, Esq. Beth E Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT AND WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street Suite 300 Seattle, WA 89103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816 6603 Facsimile: (206) 350 3528 E-mail: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com mreiten@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - David Evan Miller, Esq. Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. SAEED AND LITTLE LLP 1433 North Meridian Street Suite 202 Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 721 9214 Facsimile: (888) 422 3151 E-mail: david@sllawfirm.com ali@sllawfirm.com - and - Michael F Ram, Esq. Susan S Brown, Esq. RAM OLSON CEREGHINO AND KOPCZYNSKI LLP 101 Montgomery Street Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 4949 Facsimile: (415) 433 7311 E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com sbrown@rocklawcal.com NAT'L FOOTBALL: Stabler's Ex-Wife File Concussion Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Hal Habib, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that Royal Palm Beach's Rose Stabler, former wife of late Oakland Raiders Hall of Fame quarterback Ken Stabler, filed a class-action lawsuit against the NFL in Fort Lauderdale on April 1. She is seeking unspecified damages related to his brain disease, but the immediate result was sparking a spectacularly bitter dispute with her ex-husband's successors. As news of the suit became public, Kendra Stabler Moyes, Ken's oldest daughter but not related to Rose Stabler, accused her of trying to cash in even though Alabama court documents show she was divorced from Ken in 2009. "She's made-for-TV crazy," Kendra said. "You can't make this stuff up. I'm just frustrated and irritated because I want my dad to rest in peace and she needs to move on and stop riding on my dad's name, which she has done since the day she met him." Kim Ross Bush, who said in an e-mail to The Post that she was in a "loving" relationship with Ken since 1999, called Rose Stabler "a vicious, manipulative and unstable woman." "Kenny plainly stated to me the only decision in his life he regretted was marrying her," Ms. Bush said. "It was a heavy burden to carry." That was in direct contrast to the account offered by Rose Stabler, who dabbed tears as she recounted her marriage to Ken, who died on July 8 at age 69 of colon cancer. Rose, 57, a former Miss Alabama, was elusive when asked to acknowledge they were divorced at the time of his death. "With all the crap we went through, I never, ever felt he did not love me and he knew that, too," she said, sitting in the dining room of a townhouse she bought in 2014, displaying on her table a photograph of Ken when he played for the New Orleans Saints. "I was the love of his life and he was of mine." She blamed CTE for forcing a wedge between them, saying she sensed early stages of his brain disorder from the time they were married in 1984. She said she remained concerned for his health after they separated years ago. "The past 31 years of my life have been serious, serious depression," Rose said. "I've been seeing psychiatrists steadily since 1993." It's unclear if the divorce would affect her claim toward damages. The NFL reached a multimillion dollar settlement with thousands of plaintiffs in a class-action suit over brain injury, but Stabler's family didn't benefit because his CTE was discovered after April 22, 2015. The suit alleges that without the cutoff date, the Stabler family would have been entitled to nearly $1 million. Kendra Stabler Moyes said she and her sisters have no plans to sue the NFL. She said her father joined the class-action suit simply to support his peers "because his name carried weight." Ken will be enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio, this summer. Rose Stabler's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court, was amended onto a recently filed suit that the NFL said was without merit and would be dismissed. "We will address this in court," an NFL spokesman said on April 1. An autopsy on Stabler revealed Stage 3 chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), which has been found on the brains of numerous other deceased NFL players, including former Dolphins Earl Morrall and Junior Seau and Pahokee's Andre Waters, who played for the Philadelphia Eagles. Recently, Jeff Miller, the NFL's vice president of health and safety, told a congressional roundtable that "certainly" a link exists between football and CTE. But at the NFL's annual meetings in Boca Raton, Commissioner Roger Goodell declined an opportunity to repeat that admission. Mr. Goodell said the league's position has been "consistent" even though Miller's statement was the first time the league acknowledged such a connection. Such mixed signals frustrate families and former players who fear they might have the condition, which can be detected only after death. Chris Nowinski, president and cofounder of the Concussion Legacy Foundation, which works in conjunction with Boston University to study CTE, told The Post Mr. Goodell's reticence was "unethical." "I thought possibly the NFL could have disclosed information (about football's dangers) and possibly we could have sought help for Kenny," Rose Stabler said. Rose said both she and Ken recognized he would mentally enter a "dark place" where she could not get through to him because of CTE. Kendra offered a different account of her father's final years, although she said he suffered from ringing in his ears, bad headaches and was forgetful. "He wasn't sitting in some dark, closed-curtain room, wasn't suicidal, he wasn't depressed," she said. "He definitely had side effects. But up until the day he died, he was very coherent, very sweet, very loving." Perhaps more than any player, Ken personified the Raiders' rogue image. Nicknamed "The Snake," he was a gunslinger on the field, a hell-raiser off it. South Floridians best remember him as the man most responsible for the demise of the Miami Dolphins' dynasty of the early 1970s. In the 1974 playoffs, Stabler threw a legendary 8-yard touchdown pass to running back Clarence Davis in the final seconds of a 28- 26 victory over the Dolphins that ended their quest for three consecutive Super Bowl championships, which would be a record even today. The play, known as the "Sea of Hands" because Davis was swarmed by Dolphins Mike Kolen, Larry Ball and Tim Foley, is one of the most- replayed highlights each postseason. Living up to his devil-may-care persona, Stabler told The Post in a 2001 story that the play shouldn't have happened. "It was a dumb throw, one I probably never should have made," he said. "It's the one pass I get asked about the most, and the worst pass I've ever thrown. It probably should have been intercepted." Rose Stabler also has a colorful past, one that includes telling one media outlet Ken threw her out of a moving car but telling another outlet on the same 1986 day that the couple was "doing fine." In July, an arrest warrant was issued after she failed to appear for a hearing in Mobile, Ala. In 2011, she rolled up her sleeves for a newspaper photographer to show that her arms had no needle marks. She was rebutting a woman who said she saw her in a courthouse restroom with a needle in her arm. The Press-Register of Mobile reported that security secured the restroom and found Rose inside. A sheriff's spokesman said deputies thought she was under the influence of a substance but did not find a syringe, theorizing she might have flushed it down the toilet. Although Rose Stabler continues to assert she and Ken had physical confrontations, she said she could be the aggressor. She recounted a time, shortly after they were married, that they were in a grocery store in Louisiana. "He had two black eyes, which I gave him," she said. "And this Cajun man came up to me -- I love their accents -- and he said, 'I know you did that because if someone else did it, he'd have killed him or been in jail.' " Ms. Bush said it was all Ken could do to distance himself from her. "In spite of restraining orders, (she) continued to harass him with literally hundreds of insane voice messages over the years," Bush wrote to The Post. "As a matter of fact, she continued to text his phone the week after his death knowing that it was sitting on my nightstand." NATIONWIDE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Charges --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Gearino, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that Mark Whitt was signing papers to buy his condominium and the person across the table pulled out an unexpected disclosure. The document said that the Arena District condo complex got its electricity and water billing from a company called Nationwide Energy Partners, instead of the regulated utilities. Nationwide Energy is a "submeter" company, which acts as middlemen between utility providers and end users. Mr. Whitt signed the paper, but he felt in his gut that something was wrong. Two years later, he has emerged as the leader of a push against so-called submeter companies such as Nationwide Energy, with a class-action lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court and a formal complaint before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. He says he is doing this because tens of thousands of consumers are hurting due to unfair charges, and elected officials and regulators have allowed it to happen. "Everyone has been told, 'There's nothing we can do,'" he said, interviewed in his condo near a floor-to-ceiling window that looks out on the headquarters of a regulated electricity utility, American Electric Power. He finds this answer unacceptable because, based on his knowledge of utility law, there is plenty that can be done. Mr. Whitt, 47, is no ordinary consumer. He is a lawyer who specializes in utility regulatory issues and the managing partner of his firm. He has been successful enough to afford the condo in question, a $526,000 unit at North Bank Park. He thinks public officials have ignored the conduct of submeter companies. Part of this is because the issues are complicated, and he thinks some officials do not understand what is happening. Part of it is an imbalance of political power, as the advocates for maintaining the system are developers, a group that has much more influence than consumers. Nationwide Energy, also called NEP, says it has done nothing wrong. The company is co-owned by Michael DeAscentis, who is the top executive of a prominent Columbus developer, Lifestyle Communities. "Mark Whitt is a tenant in one of our buildings, or one of our customers' buildings," said Gary Morsches, the CEO of Nationwide Energy. "He pays the same rate as everyone else in the building, which is the same rate AEP would charge him." Nationwide Energy has argued in legal filings that its customer is the condo association, not Whitt. The condo association was set up by the North Bank Park's developer, Nationwide Realty Investors, which is part of Nationwide, the Columbus-based insurance company. Despite the similar names, Nationwide Energy and Nationwide the insurance company do not share common ownership, although they frequently do business together. Mr. Whitt says that Nationwide Energy is an intentionally misleading name. Joe Case, a Nationwide spokesman, had this comment: "We're carefully monitoring to protect our interests, and to date have not actively pursued trademark infringement." Here are some of Mr. Whitt's arguments against Nationwide Energy: -- He lives in the service territory of AEP, and says this means he is entitled by Ohio law to receive service from the utility and all of the consumer protections that go along with that service. He does not receive those protections, which include standards for service reliability and rate oversight by state regulators. -- Nationwide Energy buys electricity in bulk for less than the regulated price for households, and then resells it at the utility's regulated price, making a profit off of the difference. Whitt says this model means that the company meets the legal definition of a public utility, which should trigger a number of state regulations. -- AEP customers have the option to shop for alternative suppliers for electricity generation, and there are offers available that are less expensive than AEP's regulated price. Nationwide Energy customers do not have the option to shop, which Whitt says is wrong on principle and is depriving him of savings. -- Nationwide Energy charges fees in addition to the base price, which would not be allowed in an AEP bill. This includes charges for utilities in a building's common areas, and late fees. Nationwide Energy disagrees on each of these issues. The company, which has about 50 employees, describes itself as "an innovative energy service solutions company" and not a public utility. "I'm proud of what we do," Mr. Morsches said. "I'm proud of the service we provide to tenants and to developers." Mr. Whitt made his case in a formal complaint filed last year before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. That case led the panel to order a broader investigation of submetering, which is now in progress. The model used by Nationwide Energy is most prevalent in central Ohio, and used by several companies, but it is spreading to other parts of the state and a few other states. He entered the complaint with few allies. Among them were consumer advocacy groups, such as the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, which filed briefs agreeing with his concerns. But, as the case went on, the state's major utilities made it clear that they oppose Nationwide Energy's business model. AEP said consumers are being harmed and called for changes to rules to account for the models used by Nationwide Energy, American Power & Light and certain other submeter firms. In January, Mr. Whitt was one of a group of attorneys that sued Nationwide Energy in Franklin County Common Pleas Court. The case, which plaintiffs hope to turn into a class action, remains in its early stages, and is separate from the PUCO complaint. He moved into the condo in November 2014, following a divorce. Soon after, he got a notice from Nationwide Energy that he was being charged a 10 percent late fee and his utilities would be shut off without prompt payment. This was when his relationship with Nationwide Energy went sour. He did not dispute that the payment was late. But he knew from his legal work that there was a process for late payments and shut-offs, and Nationwide appeared to have made up its own system. In other words, the company had ticked off one of the few individual consumers with the knowledge and resources to fight back. "NEP is going to have to make a decision about what it wants to be," he said. "Does it want to be a public utility and subject to PUCO regulations so that it is exempt from the claims made in the class-action lawsuit? Or does it not want to be a public utility, and, as a consequence, have to defend itself in the civil courts." How does he think his cases will be resolved? "The ultimate decision is above my pay grade," he said. "I would hope, at a minimum, that there is an understanding of what NEP does and its business model because I think that is sorely lacking." NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Pay $7.5MM to Settle Investor Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Herald reports that Navistar International Corp has agreed to pay $7.5 million in penalties for allegedly misleading investors. The investors were reportedly made to believe of an advanced technology truck engine that could be registered to meet the U.S. emission standard. Navistar committed to pay the penalties without admitting or dismissing the charges, Fox Business reported. Despite the settlement, former Navistar CEO Daniel C. Ustian faces separate charges for helping and abetting violations by the company. According to the court filing, the SEC accused Mr. Ustian of failing to admit the company's difficulty in acquiring an Environmental Protection Agency certification of a truck engine. The certification is part of the procedure to meet the Clean Air Act Standards that started in 2010. "When public companies and top executives discuss important regulatory developments with investors, they must tell the whole truth," said SEC director of enforcement Andrew J. Ceresney. "Here, we allege that Navistar and its former CEO misled investors about their dealings with the EPA and the likely approval of its new emissions technology." Navistar spokeswoman Lyndi McMillan said a settlement is necessary for the interest of Navistar and its stockholders, ABC News Go reported. Ms. McMillan added that the settlement would avoid further costs and disagreement with the SEC. She reiterated that Navistar is focused on building and sustaining momentum on behalf of their shareholders. The Lisle, Illinois-based company also said it is already time to put the issue behind them. Meanwhile, the former Navistar CEO hasn't settled yet the class action lawsuit filed against him. Auto News notes that Navistar misled the investors by making them believe that an EPA certification is being processed. The company allegedly spent over $700 million to develop its technology called exhaust gas circulation (EGR) in order to lessen nitrous oxide emissions. However, Navistar left the development of its EGR and had been satisfied with the technology utilized by its competitor. The SEC accuses Mr. Ustian of "progressively desperate and fraudulent scheme" by launching conference calls and press releases that only deceived the investors more. It was too late for Navistar when it declared it's abandoning of the EGR technology in 2012. The former CEO resigned in August of 2012. If Mr. Ustian would be proven guilty, he would have to pay civil penalties, and be prohibited on serving as an officer or as a director of public companies. NESTLE INDIA: FSSAI Issues Contradicting Guidelines --------------------------------------------------- Swati Mathur, writing for Times of India, reports that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Central authority mandated to look out for the interest of consumers and also to ensure that "safe" and "wholesome" food is available to all, seems to be batting for welfare of food businesses rather than consumers. Months after the Central government moved court against Nestle India for alleged unfair trade practices, FSSAI has, on March 31, issued orders contradicting its actions against the multinational. In August 2015, Central government filed a class action suit against Nestle India, the manufacturer of Maggi noodles, seeking Rs 640 crore in damages from the company for alleged unfair trade practices, false labelling and misleading advertisements. The ministry's action followed Nestle India's decision to withdraw Maggi noodles from the market over allegations of high lead content and the presence of MSG (monosodium glutamate). Despite the government's action in August 2015, FSSAI now seems to have had a change of heart, a change that will not only benefit Nestle India, but also all other noodle and pasta manufacturers. In its March 31 order, which pertains to a "clarification on use of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) as flavor enhancer in seasoning for Noodles and Pastas", FSSAI first says, "There is no analytical method to determine whether MSG was added to the product during its manufacture or was present already in the product." Immediately after saying there is no analytical method to determine presence of MSG during the manufacturing process of a product, the FSSAI order adds: "To prevent both avoidable harassment/ prosecution of food business operators as well as to ensure that consumers are facilitated to exercise informed choices in respect of what they eat, proceedings may be launched against FBOs only when the labels state 'No MSG', or 'No Added MSG' and MSG is actually found in the impugned foodstuff." In its final words, FSSAI has also directed food safety commissioners of all states to no launch enforcement or prosecution against manufacturers of noddles and pastas. The order said, "Commissioners of food saftery are advised that specific enforcement/prosecution may not be launched against the manufacturers of noodles / pasta on account of presence of MSG/Glutamic acid unless it is ascertained by the department that MSG flavour enhancer was deliberately added during the course of the manufacture without declaration on the label . . . ." Interestingly, the March 31 office order comes close on the heels of the Authority's office order directing the winding up of its sub- regional office of FSSAI, in Lucknow, the same office that was instrumental in seizing the contested samples of Maggi noodles. The Lucknow office of FSSAI, which was officially closed down on March 31, is also in possession of what might be the only remaining samples of Maggi for future lab testing and sampling. NEW MEXICO: Immigrant Advocates Call for Release of Tax Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Uriel J. Garcia, writing for The New Mexican, reports that civil rights groups are asking a judge to stop the state Taxation and Revenue Department from continuing a 2012 policy of withholding tax refunds from immigrants who use a federally issued tax identification number. The motion is part of two lawsuits in state District Court that were filed by Santa Fe-based Somos Un Pueblo Unido and the national Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. The lawsuits, filed in 2015, claim that, under Republican Gov. Susana Martinez's administration, immigrants have been denied tax refunds to which they are entitled. Only four plaintiffs are included in the lawsuits but the groups say that hundreds of workers are affected by the state policy. The groups want the state to pay the plaintiffs' refunds and to stop the practice. Gov. Martinez's Department of Taxation and Revenue says it has held up refunds if it found immigrants improperly using someone else's Social Security number. At the center of the case are undocumented immigrants in New Mexico who are obligated to file tax returns, though they may not have permission to work in America. The federal government issues identification numbers to undocumented immigrants and immigrants awaiting legal status who don't have a valid Social Security number but must report taxable income to the state and federal governments. The lawsuits and request for an injunction highlight a common misconception that people without proof of immigration status don't pay state and federal income taxes. Even when undocumented immigrants are caught providing a Social Security number that doesn't belong to them, the federal government issues them a tax ID number. This is a route for them to file state and federal tax returns. The lawsuits claim the Martinez administration's policy wrongly withholds refunds from immigrants who used a tax ID number. In contrast, the federal government has continued to issue refunds to these same immigrants. Lawyers for immigrants said in their motion, that the state's policy should be stopped until the lawsuits are resolved in a state District Court in Santa Fe. "Withholding monies owed to hardworking immigrants is the act of rogues and swindlers, not of legitimate government," said Thomas Saenz, president and lawyer for the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. "These monies should be circulating in the New Mexico economy, not held by a government agency acting outside its authority, while the court decides the issues in these important cases." In their motions, Saenz and Somos Un Pueblo Unido say New Mexico has withheld hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds to immigrants. Another round of income taxes is due April 18. Ben Cloutier, a spokesman for the state Taxation and Revenue Department, said the advocacy groups want the state to ignore the law. "They're asking us to turn a blind eye when illegal immigrants seek tax refunds using tax returns with fraudulent Social Security numbers," Mr. Cloutier said. "That's absurd, and we're confident the court will agree." Arizona state tax officials in 2011 said that they would scrutinize residents' tax filings if they used a federal government tax identification number. Gov. Martinez's administration began a policy the next year modeled after Arizona's. Arizona officials told people who filed a tax return using a federal tax ID number to make sure the Social Security number on their W-2 form didn't belong to anyone else. If an immigrant was using a Social Security assigned to another person, the state may withhold his or her refund, Sean Laux, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Revenue, said on April 1. In New Mexico, the dispute is at a higher pitch. The advocacy groups claim Martinez's administration has been targeting immigrants, even those authorized to work legally, by withholding their tax returns. In one lawsuit, two of the plaintiffs are Santa Fe residents Gladys Cobos, an accountant, and L. Roberto Sanchez, a handyman. Both say they are lawfully authorized to work in the United States, and for years they paid their taxes in New Mexico without any trouble until Martinez won election as governor. Beginning in 2012, they say, Martinez's staff at the state Taxation and Revenue Department began denying them tax refunds and even assessing fees and penalties on filings. In contrast, the U.S. government accepted their returns, which Ms. Cobos and Sanchez filed using their federal individual tax identification numbers. Two plaintiffs in the second suit, who are not authorized to work in the United States, are from Farmington. A married couple, they identify themselves in the lawsuit as John and Jane Doe. He is a laborer in the oil and gas industry. They also allege in their pleadings that they have a long work history in New Mexico, and that they always paid their taxes on time using the identification numbers provided by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The lawsuits are not seeking class-action status. Instead, the lawyers are seeking that the state pay what the four plaintiffs are due and end the policy of withholding tax refunds. "New Mexico's immigrant workers cannot afford to wait for a final court decision," said Marisa Bono, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. "State officials should not be allowed to continue targeting immigrant families while our clients argue their full case before the court." NEW RESIDENTIAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains pending. Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action." On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison counsel were appointed in the Securities Action. On November 9, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On January 27, 2016, the Securities Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165 (S.D. Fla.). The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management and internal controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS's disclosures were materially false and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and internal controls and (iv) certain related party transactions. The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege that HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and misleading based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in the Securities Action also allege that HLSS misled investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's business practices. Lead plaintiffs seek money damages under the Securities Exchange Act in an amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs, expenses, and fees. "We intend to vigorously defend the Securities Action and consistent therewith on February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Securities Action in its entirety," the Company said. New Residential is a publicly traded real estate investment trust ("REIT") primarily focused on opportunistically investing in, and actively managing, investments related to residential real estate. NEW YORK: "Cisco" Suit v. Governor Cuomo Closed ----------------------------------------------- Judge Glenn T. Suddaby dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and closed the case captioned HENRY I. CISCO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW CUOMO, et al., Defendants, No. 9:15-CV-0618 (GTS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y.). Pro se plaintiffs commenced a civil rights action asserting claims arising out of their confinement in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). After the denial of their claims and request for class certification on November 23, 2015, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, as well as motions for permanent injunction and the appointment of counsel. The plaintiffs' second attempt to have the matter class certified was again denied by Judge Suddaby as it is well-settled that a class action cannot be maintained by a pro se litigant since non- attorneys may not represent anyone other than themselves. Judge Suddaby found that the amended complaint does not contain any facts pertaining to Salih Abdullah, Richard Dennis, Clifford Merchant, Timothy Frazier and Glenn Vannorstrand and that these plaintiffs did not sign the amended complaint. Thus, the judge dismissed any claims asserted on behalf these plaintiffs for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Claims by the remaining plaintiffs Henry Cisco and Thaxton Hamlin were also dismissed by Judge Suddaby for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for the same reasons set forth in the November order. Consequently, the judge also denied the plaintiffs' motions for appointment of counsel and for permanent injunction. Lastly, Judge Suddaby found that any further amendment of the plaintiffs' complaint would be futile, and so the claims were dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of Judge Suddaby's March 22, 2016 decision and order is available at http://is.gd/JQvxrBfrom Leagle.com. OBESITY RESEARCH: Faces "Bozic" Suit Over Weight Loss Pill Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Regina Bozic, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general public v. Henny Den Uijl, Sandra Den Uijl, Bryan Corlett, Obesity Research Institute, Continuity Products, National Weight Loss Institute, Zodiac Foundation, Conversion Systems, Innotrac Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 16CV0733BTMRBB (S.D. Cal., March 29, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment, equitable and injunctive relief, monetary damages and consumer redress for false and misleading statement over Lipozene weight loss pill. Plaintiffs alleges that through a uniform and comprehensive marketing scheme, Lipozene is advertised online, in magazines, and in retail stores as being the "CLINICALLY PROVEN" weight loss supplement that helps users "LOSE WEIGHT WITHOUT DIET AND EXERCISE." Obesity Research Institute is a research institution. Continuity Products is engaged in marketing and advertising business. National Weight Loss Institute is a registered dietitian. Zodiac Foundation is a society to give loan against security money as donation. Conversion Systems is a website designer. Innotrac Corporation provides customized, technology-based support services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com OKINAWA SUSHI: "Zhao" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Lei Zhao, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Okinawa Sushi & Grill Corporation d/b/a Okinawa, Ri Jie Zheng, "Selina" Doe, John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01775- SRC-CL (D.N.J., March 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, improperly diverted/ withheld tips, liquidated damages and statutory penalties and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 400 Newark St., Hoboken, NJ 07030. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keli Liu, Esq. Jian Hang, Esq. HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 39th Ave. Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com jhang@hanglaw.com OMEGA ENGINEERING: Sued in N.Y. Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Stults v. Omega Engineering, Inc., Barry Fox, and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-1205-16 (N.Y. Super. Ct., March 30, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged employment discrimination based on disability. The Defendants operate an instrumentation company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, with its main factory in Bridgeport, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C. 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, "Orden" Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Del-Orden, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02319 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2016), complains that the Defendant failed to make its Web site accessible to blind persons. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC owns and operates restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 OVASCIENCE INC: Securities Case Remanded to Mass. Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ovascience, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a district court has granted plaintiffs' motion to remand their class action lawsuit to the Superior Court in Massachusetts. "On October 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against us, several of our officers and directors and certain of the underwriters from our January 2015 follow-on public offering of our common stock," the Company said. "The plaintiffs purport to represent those persons who purchased shares of our common stock pursuant or traceable to our January 2015 follow-on public offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement and incorporated offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-and post-judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements. "On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of removal with the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to the Superior Court. "Oral argument on the motion to remand was held on February 19, 2016. On February 23, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to the Superior Court. "We believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit." OvaScience is a global fertility company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of new fertility treatment options for women. P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Black" Suit in Illinois Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- RYAN BLACK and DAYNIA McDONALD v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Case: 1:16-cv-03958 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and alleged misappropriated tips, unlawful deductions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. P.F. Chang's is one of the leading Asian-inspired full service casual restaurant chains in the United States and presently owns and operates approximately 218 locations in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-419-1008 - and - Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 25th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. The case is captioned Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02392 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, March 31, 2016). P. F. Chang's is an Asian-themed US casual dining restaurant chain owned and operated by Centerbridge Partners and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. As of October 2014, P. F. Chang's operated 204 restaurants in the United States and 56 in international markets under licensee agreements. Countries include Canada, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Turkey, Lebanon, Philippines and the Middle East. It is the largest full service, casual dining Chinese restaurant chain in the United States with locations across the country. The Plaintiff appears pro se. PIZZA POINT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN BASIL FERRUFINO SANCHEZ v. PIZZA POINT I, INC., and ASHWANI KUMAR, Case 1:16-cv-21177-FAM (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2016), alleges that the Plaintiff has not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly in violation of under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 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 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com QUESTAR CORPORATION: Violated Exchange Act, "Ipson" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Ipson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Questar Corporation, the Plaintiff, v. Questar Corporation, Teresa Beck, Laurence M. Downes, Christopher A. Helms, Ronald W. Jibson, James T. Mcmanus II, Rebecca Ranich, Harris H. Simmons, Bruce A. Williamson, Dominion Resources, Inc., and Diamond Beehive Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00255-JN (D. Utah, Central Div. March31, 2016), seeks to enjoin the Individual Defendants from further violating federal securities laws and breaching duties in connection with a proposed transaction. On February 1, 2016, Questar announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement (the Merger Agreement) on January 31, 2016 with Dominion and Diamond Beehive Corp. Merger Sub) for Dominion to acquire Questar, for $25 for each share of Questar, valued at $47.00 per share (the Proposed Transaction). The implied equity value of the transaction is approximately $4.4 billion. Both companies' boards of directors approved the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed Transaction contemplates an acquisition of all three of Questar's subsidiaries: Questar Gas Company, Questar Pipeline Company, and Wexpro Company. Questar Corporation is a natural gas-focused energy company based in Salt Lake City, Utah in the Rocky Mountains. Questar's three major lines of business -- retail gas distribution, interstate gas transportation and gas production -- are conducted through its principal subsidiaries: Questar Gas, Questar Pipeline and Wexpro. Wexpro is an oil and natural gas producer in the Rocky Mountains. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD, A.P.C. 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, Utah 84093 Telephone: 801-386-5058 Facsimile: 801-912-0320 - and - Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 RA ARIAS LANDSCAPING: "Fragoso" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Richardo Fragoso, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RA Arias Landscaping, Corp (d/b/a RA Arias Landscaping) and Raymundo Arias, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv- 02292 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Ra Arias Landscaping is a landscaping company, located at 164 Locust Ave., New Rochelle, NY 10805 The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com SA PATHOLOGY: Faulty Cancer Testing Kits May Spur Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wills, writing for The Advertiser, reports that Health Minster Jack Snelling says faulty testing kits from a private company are believed to be the cause of false prostate cancer diagnoses, and more heads could roll over the scandal. Mr. Snelling on April 3 gave an update over the SA Pathology bungle, which is believed to have affected about 100 men, and said he was fuming about having being left in the dark. "I am beside myself with rage that this could happen and it not occur to anyone in SA Pathology that this was something that needed to be briefed up to the chief executive of SA Health and ultimately to me," Mr. Snelling said. "It would hard not to describe it as a cover up. "When mistakes are made, what I expect is for people to be accountable for them and for people to be forthright so that we can provide assurances . . . about the quality of our health system. "Potentially, if wFe find further cases of people not being upfront with the people of SA and not providing me with the information I need to do my job effectively, yes heads will roll." Mr. Snelling said he did not have complete confidence in the information he received since the matter was brought to his attention by the Sunday Mail on Saturday afternoon, but "it appears that this is because of things that were outside the control of SA Pathology". "There was a problem with the testing kits provided by the external company to SA Pathology to conduct the tests," Mr. Snelling said . He did not name the company, but said it could be liable. Mr. Snelling said the recent performance of the health department, which included patients receiving incorrect chemotherapy doses and patient record hacking, had "left a lot to be desired". Mr. Snelling rejected suggestions there should be a judicial inquiry into the entire department, saying the failings had been isolated to a relatively small number of people. "There is nothing to indicate that anyone has received unnecessary treatment because of any of these tests," Mr. Snelling said. He said he believed all dodgy tests had been rechecked. The doctor who raised the alarm on a major bungle that led to about 100 men with prostate cancer being wrongly diagnosed says "it's possible" some of those men were treated unnecessarily on the basis of that false diagnosis. The Sunday Mail and Advertiser.com.au exclusively revealed claims from leading urologist Dr Peter Sutherland that patients had received false positive results since January, despite many having had their prostate glands removed. On April 3, he said it was possible some of those men went on to receive unnecessary radiotherapy treatment. "It's possible," Dr. Sutherland said on April 3. "The thing we commonly do in this situation is if we're worried about cancer growing in a man in this situation, we're worried the cancer is growing from the area the cancer is removed from so commonly we'd treat the prostate bed area." Any patients who received treatment would have been risking possible side-effects, as with any surgery or medical intervention, he said. SA Health moved to sack the executive director of Pathology SA, Ken Barr, within hours of the bungle being revealed by the Sunday Mail. However, it can now be revealed Mr. Barr told staff in an internal memo on February 16 that he had decided to leave SA anyway when his contract expired on July 23. A copy of the memo, sighted by The Advertiser, states the decision came following a meeting with a senior staff member in charge of Statewide Clinical Support Services. "Following a meeting with Steve Morris as group executive director of SCSS, I have confirmed to him that on completion of my contract with SA Health on 23rd July I will be leaving my post as executive director of SA Pathology and returning to my family in the UK," Mr Barr wrote. "I am conscious of the significant challenges ahead for both SA Pathology, particularly around the EY project, EPLIS and the transition to nRAH. You can be assured of my ongoing commitment to SA Pathology between now and the end of my contract. "I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for all your hard work and strong support for me since I arrived in October 2012. It has been an honor and privilege to work with you. I will be taking home some fantastic memories of my time here." He also tweeted about his intentions to work in the UK National Health Service. The decision came about the time doctors sounded the alarm on dodgy testing within the department and after an SA Pathology scandal over hidden cameras recording staff. Today, an angry Jack Snelling said he'd "had a gutful" of being given inadequate or incorrect information by senior health bureaucrats as the fallout from the bungle continues. While reluctant to pre-empt the findings of an investigation into the errors, Mr. Snelling said there had been a breakdown in normal protocols that were designed to ensure the Minister and senior executives were made aware of problems in the system. "We are only as good as the information that's provided up to us and sometimes that information is inadequate or incorrect," Mr. Snelling said. "And I've had a gutful of it and that's why the chief executive of SA Health has taken the decision he took (in sacking Mr Barr)." Mr. Snelling said an independent investigator would be brought in from interstate "to get to the absolute bottom of this". He declined to comment on whether it was likely the government would face legal action over the bungle. "Look, it would still be very, very early days yet and I wouldn't be in a position to comment." Opposition Health spokesman Stephen Wade said Mr. Snelling had "lost control of his department" and should take responsibility for a culture of secrecy. "He and his party have presided over the health system for 14 years. He is responsible for the secretive and unaccountable organization that is SA Health," Mr. Wade said. On February 17, in a tweet via an account that appears to belong to Mr. Barr, he told followers he was leaving Pathology SA and flagged a possible new role in the UK. "Amazing time with SA Pathology but time to move to new challenges. "I can feel NHS #Pathology calling from 10,000 miles away." A specialist SA Health team is now scrambling to determine how many people have been affected and the cause of the error, which is believed to be a machine malfunction. Mr. Barr has also been publicly savaged by Mr. Snelling for overseeing a "cover-up" which has created distress among patients who wrongly believed they had cancer. The SA Health team is to identify all affected patients and contact them. Central Adelaide Health Network chief executive Julia Squire said she had been unable to get "complete clarification on exactly what has occurred" since the news broke. She said the estimate of about 100 affected patients "feels about right", but must be checked. The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality will conduct an independent review, on request of SA Health, to examine testing standards and the care and attention given to patients. Mr. Snelling was unaware of the scandal until approached for comment the day before publication and accused SA Pathology of misleading him and the public in a "cover-up". A fortnight ago, SA Pathology released an obtuse media statement on its website about "improved testing", stating that recent PSA (prostate-specific antigen) results had been "highly accurate and reliable in the core range" but it had "moved to improve values below 0.15ug/L". Mr. Snelling said he didn't "have an enormous amount of confidence in what I've been told". "I don't think anyone reading that release on the website would think for a moment that it was reporting something on the scale of what we've seen," Mr. Snelling said. "It is just simply unacceptable for me to be finding information about things on this sort of scale from journalists, rather than through my department. "I'm very, very angry about it. "It was incredibly distressing to some of our patients and should have been briefed up to me. "These sorts of cover-ups are unacceptable. When they do occur, we'll take appropriate action." Mr. Snelling said the Government must be "open and frank" about its mistakes. SA Pathology was the focus for another scandal last year, when hidden cameras were used to spy on staff. A review found they were inappropriate, but no laws were breached. At the time, Mr. Snelling said there had been poor judgment by SA Pathology management. The health department has also been under intense scrutiny in recent months after it was revealed the private records of patients, including accused murderer Cy Walsh, were hacked by clinicians. That case was also only brought to public attention by media reporting. The Advertiser also first revealed in August that 10 patients at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and Flinders Medical Centre had received only half their required chemotherapy doses due to a typo. Mr. Swan said he was "very concerned that patients have been led to believe they may have prostate cancer by false readings" and "it is clear even at this stage that there have been a number of issues that SA Pathology has not reported or managed effectively". Anyone with any concerns should call SA Pathology Enquiries on 8222 3000. Opposition health spokesman Stephen Wade said Mr. Snelling had "clearly has lost control of his own department" and was regularly "kept in the dark about problems in our health system". "He and his Party have presided over the health system for 14 years. He is responsible for the secretive and unaccountable organization that is SA Health," Mr. Wade said. Duncan Basheer Hannon partner Patrick Boylen said the affected patients could have grounds for a class action against SA Pathology to recover medical costs and compensate for suffering. "There is potential negligence action there against SA Pathology," he said. "There appears to be something like 100 (people affected), and faulty machine or testing processes. "In terms of damages, you've got unnecessary medical expenses, perhaps time off work, pain and suffering associated with surgery plus the stress of the wrong diagnosis." One patient who received a false positive test said he went through "hell" because of the error, and it took weeks before being cleared. "For 30 days I felt like I was on death row," he said. Dr. Sutherland said a positive result might mean a patient goes on to have treatment including radiotherapy to the base of the spine, which can produce extra side effects and problems. Anyone with any concerns should call SA Pathology Enquiries on 8222 3000. SAHARA EAST RESTAURANT: "Dacaj" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Zef Dacaj, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sahara East Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Sahara East Restaurant, Mahmoud Gomaa and Ahmed Gomaa, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02273 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Sahara East Restaurant is located at 184 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10009. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. Washcarina Martinez Alonzo, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue - 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com martinez@pechmanlaw.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Dismisses "St. Jon" Suit --------------------------------------------- Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the case captioned DJ ST. JON on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY J. TATRO ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-2552-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal.). The action follows a protacted litigation in California state court over the fate of the De Anza Cove mobile home park. DJ St. Jon's alleged that the defendants violated his due process rights by conspiring to reach a "settlement" regarding an award of attorneys' fees without a preliminary approval or fairness hearing as required by California Rule of Court 3.679. Judge Curiel found that St. Jon lacks standing as she has not alleged an "injury in fact." Although St. Jon argued that she has been injured in three ways: (1) deprivation of her "vested property and liberty interest" in a fairness hearing in state court regarding the attorneys' fees awarded to class counsel; (2) her eviction from her mobile home on January 13, 2016; and (3) the loss of her right to appeal the state court decision, Judge Curiel concluded that none of these alleged injuries amount to an injury in fact sufficient to support Article III standing. Judge Curiel also found that the applicability of the Rooker- Feldman doctrine constitutes an independent ground upon which the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's due process claim. Consequently, since the plaintiff's sole federal claim has been dismissed on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Curiel also concluded that the court lacks authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over St. Jon's state law claims. Judge Curiel also denied St. Jon's motion for leave to amend, and dismissed the defendants' motions to strike as moot. A full-text copy of Judge Curiel's March 23, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/kU8Oz9from Leagle.com. DJ St. Jon, Plaintiff, represented by Eduardo Martorell, Bordin Martorell LLP & Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Bordin Martorell, LLP. Timothy J. Tatro, Peter A. Zamoyski, Tatro & Zamoyski, LLP, Defendants, represented by Charles R Grebing, Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP & Colin Howard Walshok, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin LLP. Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr., Karen Frostrom, Thornes Bartolotta & McGuire, Defendants, represented by Douglas M Butz -- dmbutz@butzdunn.com -- Butz Dunn & Desantis. M. D. Scully, William Rathbone, Timothy Branson, Gordon & Rees LLP, Defendants, represented by Eric R Deitz -- edeitz@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP &Allison L. Jones -- ajones@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP. City of San Diego, Jan I. Goldsmith, Donald R. Worley, John E. Riley, Defendants, represented by Edward C. Walton -- ed.walton@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP & Zagros Bassirian -- zag.bassirian@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Case No. 3:16-cv-00083 (S.D. Tex., March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Schlumberger Technology Corp. is a supplier of technology, integrated project management and information solutions to customers working in the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Facsimile: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains pending. On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2015. The Company and the other defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on September 18, 2015. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: To Seek Dismissal of "Hall" Action ---------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint filed in the consumer class action lawsuit. On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall Matter"). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld "experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0 million, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. The first three actions were filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the "Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne Matter"). On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs. On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in an action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter. On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015. The FAC pursues the same seven causes of action as the original Hall complaint, and adds a request for punitive damages pursuant to the California CLRA. The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its motion was granted on December 24, 2015. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the Company. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted leave to amend as to the remainder of the complaint. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC pursues the same causes of action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted above, was dismissed with prejudice. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the SAC. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Plaintiffs Appeal Remand Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit by Marc Anderson, et. al., have filed a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson Matter"). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0 million, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15:cv-2172-SC. On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. The motion is fully briefed. On September 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On October 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for leave. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was fully briefed. On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case. In that order, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California noted that it will defer ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss until the Ninth Circuit rules on plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company intends to oppose. Both of plaintiffs' petitions for permission to appeal remain pending. SENTINEL OFFENDER: Needs Court Order for Probationers' Drug Test ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Hodson, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reports that Sentinel Offender Services has agreed to stop making probationers submit and pay for drug tests unless the company has a written court order for testing. In a federal lawsuit filed in north Georgia, a consent order was signed March 31, a day before a judge was to hear arguments about issuing a temporary injunction. The Southern Center for Human Rights filed a civil rights lawsuit against Sentinel on behalf of two Cleveland, Ga., women. Rita Sanders Luse and Marianne Ligocki were charged in unrelated cases with the misdemeanor offense of driving on a suspended license. The two pleaded guilty to the charges in White County Probate Court. They were placed on 12 months of probation because they couldn't pay fines in full on their court dates. According to the lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, Sentinel employee Stacy McDowell-Black told Ms. Luse and Ms. Ligocki that they had to take drug tests or she would have them jailed for violating probation. However, according to court documents, drug testing was not a condition of probation set by the judge for either woman. The lawsuit, filed in February, accuses Sentinel of forcing people to undergo drug tests to earn higher fees that the company is not entitled to collect. Sentinel denies forcing any probationer to submit to a drug test not ordered by a court. In the March 31 consent order, neither side of the dispute concedes its position. However, Sentinel agreed to not require anyone sentenced to probation out of the White County Probate Court to submit to a drug test unless the test is specifically authorized in a written court order. The lawsuit is one of 15 federal lawsuits filed against Sentinel in Georgia, Florida and California. In addition, more than a dozen civil rights lawsuits have been filed against the private probation company in the Superior Courts of Richmond and Columbia counties since 2012. In the first trial of the local lawsuits, a jury found in favor of Kathleen Hucks in February and awarded her $50,000 in damages and $125,000 in legal fees. SHAMROCKFOODS COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Zubia, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Shamrockfoods Company and Does 1400, Case No. BC615331 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Shamrockfoods Company specializes in the manufacturing and distribution of quality food and food-related products. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jill Veccbi, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619)234-4048 SIRIUS XM: Continues to Face TCPA Class Suits --------------------------------------------- Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that SIRIUS XM remains a defendant in Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action suits. SIRIUS XM is a defendant in several purported class action suits that allege that SIRIUS XM, or call center vendors acting on their behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that SIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatic telephone dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or, alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent. In one of the actions, the plaintiff also alleges that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's call time restrictions, and in one of the other actions, the plaintiff also alleges that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's do not call restrictions. SIRIUS XM's vendors make millions of calls each month to consumers, including its subscribers, as part of its customer service and marketing efforts. The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of five-hundred dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen-hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the TCPA in the future. SIRIUS XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions and intends to defend them vigorously. These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla). These actions were commenced in February 2012, January 2013, April 2015 and July 2015, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, respectively. Information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers. SIRIUS XM has notified certain of its call center vendors of these actions and requested that they defend and indemnify SIRIUS XM against these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or former agreements with SIRIUS XM. SIRIUS XM believes it has valid contractual claims against certain call center vendors in connection with these claims and intends to preserve and pursue its rights to recover from these entities; however, no assurance can be made as to SIRIUS XM's ability to fully recover all claims it may have against these entities. Liberty Media Corporation owns interests in subsidiaries and other companies which are engaged in the media and entertainment industries. Its principal businesses and assets include consolidated subsidiaries SIRIUS XM and the Braves Holdings, LLC, and its equity affiliate Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. SOLVAY SOLEXIS: Settles Class Action Over Contaminated Water ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Polhamus, writing for NJ.com, reports that a plastics company has settled a class action lawsuit by agreeing to front blood testing costs for borough residents who drank contaminated tap water. Solvay Solexis and Arkema, the companies sued after an environmental watchdog group discovered perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) in state data on the town's main water supply, have not admitted any wrongdoing by agreeing to the settlement, court documents say. In January 2014, the state government warned people living in Paulsboro that they should use "an abundance of caution" regarding their water supply, and that parents should avoid giving the water to children under the age of 1. Solvay provided bottled water to residents for much of that year. PFCs and PFNA are bioaccumulating chemicals that were used by Solvay -- located in the neighboring township of West Deptford -- from the 1980s until 2010. Effects of the chemicals are still being studied, though the Environmental Protection Agency says they can be toxic to laboratory animals and wildlife. At the time of the lawsuit's filing in early 2014, testing had found PFNA levels of more than 100 parts per trillion in the water, but there was no standard in place for acceptable levels of the chemical. Last year, the NJDEP set a standard of 10 parts per trillion. Lewis Adler, the lead attorney representing the lawsuit class, was not available for comment when reached by phone on April 1. The proposed settlement, however, says that the manufacturers have agreed to put up a total of $1.84 million -- $420,000 as a monetary reward and a $1.42 million fund for resident blood tests. The class includes residents who lived in town for at least a year between Aug. 19, 2009, and April 10, 2014, as well as those who owned property in Paulsboro from Aug. 5, 2013 to April 10, 2014. A judge will have to review the settlement at a June 2 hearing before it is approved. SOUTHERN HEALTH: Mother Mulls Class Action Over Care Failings ------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Hattenstone, writing for The Guardian, reports that three years ago, aged 18, Connor Sparrowhawk drowned in a bath at Slade House, a residential unit run by Southern Health, an NHS foundation trust. His parents had brought him there a few months before, after he became aggressive and violent, and they found themselves unable to cope. "It felt as if we were buying a bit of time for everyone, including Connor," Richard Huggins (Connor's stepfather, says. "These guys were professionals, Connor would get some support. We thought it was a terrible thing to have to do, but it was fair. Within a few days we thought the place wasn't very good. But we never, ever thought he wouldn't come out." In October last year, a jury delivered a damning verdict, that serious failings and neglect had contributed to Connor's death. Two months later, an astonishing report by audit firm Mazars, commissioned by NHS England in 2014 at the request of Connor's family, found that Southern Health had failed to properly investigate the deaths of more than 700 people with learning disabilities or mental health problems, over a four-year period, from 2011 to 2015. In a statement to the Commons on 10 December last year, health secretary Jeremy Hunt said that the Mazars report had raised serious concerns about Southern Health, which cares for about 45,000 people in Hampshire, Dorset, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. "Our hearts go out to the families of those affected," he said. "More than anything, they want to know that the NHS learns from tragedies such as what happened to Connor Sparrowhawk, and that is something we patently fail to do on too many occasions . . . There is an urgent need to improve the investigation of, and learning from, the estimated 200 avoidable deaths we have every week across the system." But 100 days on from the Mazars report, she is beginning to think she was naive. "We thought the report would become a national priority for action. And nothing has happened." She is looking at the possibility of bringing a class action, with other families, against Southern Health, one of the largest mental health and learning disability trusts in England. Two weeks after Connor's death, Sara discovered that Southern Health had recorded his passing in the minutes of a board meeting published online: "A Serious Incident Requiring Investigation (SIRI) occurred in one of the Trust Learning Disability in-patient facilities, leading to the unexpected death of a service user. The postmortem indicates the user died of natural causes and early investigations indicate all appropriate systems and processes were in place and being followed leading up to the incident." At the time, Sara did not think she could have been more angry, but she was wrong. In September 2013, six weeks after Connor died, the Care Quality Commission visited Slade House, and failed it on all 10 counts it inspected: there was no battery in the defibrillator, no oxygen in the oxygen tank, no therapeutic interactions, there were traces of faeces in the furniture, medicines were out of date -- and on it went. Three months later, in December 2013, the Statt unit was closed down. In May 2014, it was reported that the CQC had returned to Slade House and that its services had improved; baths, however, were now banned in favour of showers. The reason was never revealed to Connor's family. (The CQC's current rating for Southern Health is "requires improvement".) Look beyond the stark headline numbers of 2015's Mazars report and the detail is just as shocking. Of 10,306 deaths of service users between April 2011 and March 2015, 722 were categorized as unexpected; of these only 30% were investigated. Sixty-four per cent of investigations did not involve the family. Most shocking of all, less than 1% of deaths in learning disability services were investigated (compared with 60% of unexpected deaths in adult mental health services). Southern Health came in for severe criticism: "The failure to bring about a sustained improvement in the identification of unexpected death and in the quality and timeliness of reports into those deaths is a failure of leadership and government." In December, Sara called for the chief executive of Southern Health, Katrina Percy, to resign. The trust acknowledged the failings documented in the Mazars report: "We fully accept that our processes for reporting and investigating deaths of people with learning disabilities and mental health needs were not always as good as they should have been." But it also defended its record, stating that, "National data on mortality rates confirms that the Trust is not an outlier" and its "rate of investigations is in line with that of other NHS organizations". STERLING BACKCHECK: Faces "Halem" Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Backcheck, Inc. The case is captioned Amin Halem, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sterling Backcheck, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00151-HCM-LRL (E.D. Va., Norfolk, March, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge is Hon. Henry C. Morgan, Jr. Sterling Backcheck provides background check and substance abuse screening services. Its services include county criminal record search, federal criminal court record search, national criminal record database, statewide criminal record search, sex offender registry, and civil record search; and employment and education verifications, professional license and military service record verifications, financial sanctions searches, reference interview, and DOT verifications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELL y & CRANDALL, PLC 4084 University Drive, Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424 7576 Facsimile: (703) 591 9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Scott A. Surovell, Esq. SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY PLC 4010 University Dr., Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 277 9750 Facsimile: (703) 591 9285 E-mail: ssurovell@smillaw.com - and - Erin Elizabeth Witte, Esq. SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY PLC 4010 University Dr., Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 277 9770 Facsimile: (703) 591 9285 E-mail: ewitte@siplfirm.com SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces "Felix" Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. The case is captioned Sarah Felix, formerly known as: Sarah M. Ellis, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, The Plaintiff, v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01052-WSD (N.D. Ga, Atlanta, March 31, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge is Hon. William S. Duffey, Jr. SunTrust Mortgage provides mortgage solutions for first-time homebuyers and homeowners in the United States. It offers fixed- rate mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages, agency plus financing loans, federal housing administration loans, department of veterans affairs loans, construction-to-permanent loans, guaranteed rural housing loans, and doctor loan programs; and mortgage refinancing services that include cash-out refinancing. The company also provides mortgage assistance programs, such as home affordable refinance program and home affordable modification program. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq. Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq. THE WERNER LAW FIRM, P.C. 2142 Vista Dale Court Atlanta, GA 30084 Telephone: (770) 866 0898 Facsimile: (855) 873 2090 E-mail: adam@wernerlaw.com matt@wernerlaw.com - and - Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Esq. Kevin Edward Epps, Esq. FORTSON BENTLEY & GRIFFIN, P.A. Building 200, Suite 3A 2500 Daniell's Bridge Road Athens, GA 30606 Telephone: (706) 548 1151 E-mail: jwd@fbglaw.com kee@fbglaw.com - and - Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. 3900 One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309-3417 Telephone: (404) 881 4151 E-mail: ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com - and - Steven Rosenwasser, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. 3900 One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309-3417 Telephone: (404) 881 4100 E-mail: rosenwasser@bmelaw.com TD AMERITRADE: Judge's F&R Adopted as to SLUSA Preclusion Issue --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JAY ZOLA, AND JEREMIAH JOSEPH LOWNEY, Plaintiffs, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., AND TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., Defendants. TYLER VERDIECK, A California Citizen, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated; Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., a New York Corporation; Defendant. BRUCE LERNER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Defendant. MICHAEL SARBACKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., FREDERIC J. TOMCZYK, AND PAUL JIGANTI, Defendants. GERALD J. KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE INC., AND FREDRIC TOMCZYK, Defendants, Nos. 8:14CV288, 8:14CV289, 8:14CV325, 8:14CV341, 8:14CV396 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon adopted the findings and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, but with respect only to the issue of preclusion under the Securities Litigation Uniforma Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). In their complaints, the plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, alleged wrongdoing by the TD Ameritrade defendants in connection with the execution of stock trades, and sought recovery under various state and federal theories. Essentially, all of the plaintiffs challenged TD America's alleged practice of routing virtually all of its customers' orders and trades in contravention of its purported duties and/or contractual obligations to "best execute" the trade. The magistrate judge recommended granting TD Ameritrade's motions to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' state-law claims as preempted under SLUSA, denying the motions to dismiss the state law claims by reason of regulatory preemption, and granting the motions to dismiss all of the respective plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim. With respect to SLUSA preemption, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of state law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and statutory claims. The plaintiffs objected to the magistrate judge's recommendations of dismissal. Judge Bataillon found that the magistrate judge's recommendations should be adopted in part and denied in part. Judge Bataillon agreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the motions to dismiss all of the respective plaintiffs' state-law claims as barred under SLUSA, making it unnecessary to address the defendant's regulatory preemption or failure-to-state-a-claim arguments as to the state-law claims. Judge Bataillon disagreed, however, with the magistrate judge's recommendation that Gerald J. Klein's federal securities fraud claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claims. Judge Bataillon found that, under the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), Klein states a claim for securities fraud under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act. A full-text copy of Judge Bataillon's March 23, 2016 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/WU6XVTfrom Leagle.com. Gerald J. Klein, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Kupka -- ckupka@zlk.com -- LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Eduard Korsinsky -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Gregory C. Scaglione -- greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM,Joseph J. DePalma -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- LITE, DEPALMA LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Nancy A. Kulesa -- nkulesa@zlk.com -- LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Patrice D. Ott -- patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM & Sebastiano Tornatore -- stornatore@zlk.com -- LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade, Inc., Fredric Tomczyk, Defendants, represented by A. Robert Pietrzak -- rpietrzak@sidley.com -- SIDLEY, AUSTIN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Alex J. Kaplan -- ajkaplan@sidley.com -- SIDLEY, AUSTIN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Jackie A. Lu -- jlu@sidley.com -- SIDLEY, AUSTIN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Thomas H. Dahlk -- tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Victoria H. Buter -- vicki.buter@kutakrock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM. Kwok L. Shum, Roderick Ford, Movants, represented by Christopher J. Kupka, LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Eduard Korsinsky, LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Gregory C. Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, Joseph J. DePalma, LITE, DEPALMA LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Nancy A. Kulesa, LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Sebastiano Tornatore, LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice. PSLRA Class, Interested Party, represented by Gregory C. Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM. TAKATA CORP: Cunningham Brothers Sues Over Defective Air Bags ------------------------------------------------------------- Cunningham Brothers Auto Parts, LLC, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Honda Motor Co., LTD., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW Of North America, LLC, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., And Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., LTD., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, LDT., Subaru of America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00013-NKM (W.D. VA, March 29, 2016), alleges that vehicles contain defective airbags that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants. Takata Corporation and TK Holdings, Inc. supply automotive safety systems that design, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and sells airbags. The Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants are Honda Motor Co., LTD., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW Of North America, LLC, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., And Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., LTD., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, LDT., Subaru of America, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren E. Davis, Esq. FRITH & ELLERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 8248 Roanoke, VA 24014 Tel: 540/985-0098 Fax: 540/985-9198 Email: ldavis@frithlawfirm.law - and - R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. Frank B. Ulmer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300 P.O. Box 505 Charleston, SC 29451 Tel: (205) 239-5388 Fax: (904) 239-5388 Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action Now in Discovery Stage ----------------------------------------------------------- Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the consolidated class action lawsuit is now in discovery stage. The Company, two of its former executive officers, five of its outside directors, and certain companies affiliated with the directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., et al. Several related actions were filed in 2013, and then consolidated. The plaintiffs are three investors who seek to represent a class or classes consisting of (1) all purchasers of Tile Shop common stock between August 22, 2012 and January 28, 2014 (the "alleged class period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) all purchasers of Tile Shop common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's December 2012 registration statements, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Six firms who were underwriters in the December 2012 secondary public offering are also named as defendants. In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint"), the plaintiffs allege that during the alleged class period, certain defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact in press releases and SEC filings about the Company's relationships with its vendors, its gross margins, and its supply chain and producer relationships, and that defendants failed to disclose certain related party transactions. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition to attorney's fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the members of the purported classes. The defendants are vigorously defending the matter. The matter is now in discovery. The Tile Shop offers a wide selection of manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and maintenance materials, and related accessories in retail locations across much of the United States. UFC: Counsel Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents -------------------------------------------------------- Paul Gift, writing for Bloody Elbow, reports that new filings in the class-action antitrust lawsuit reveal a battle over whether the plaintiff fighters will be able to use the contents of accidentally-produced documents or whether they'll have to be completely ignored. According to a letter written by UFC attorney Marcy Norwood Lynch, when documents were produced in the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) 2011 investigation of the Strikeforce merger, the UFC's outside counsel at the time, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, "inadvertently produced some privileged documents that were later clawed back with the cooperation of the FTC." According to Lynch, the documents were sequestered by the FTC but "the privilege log and the production media were not necessarily updated to reflect such claw backs. The result is that the privilege log and the production data from the 2011 investigation that were provided to [current UFC outside counsel Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP] contained several inadvertent omissions that we were unable to identify prior to producing these documents to Plaintiffs in this case." In other words, it appears that the UFC's former attorneys accidentally gave privileged documents to the FTC and, since the privilege log wasn't updated, the UFC's current attorneys turned around and handed the exact same documents to the fighters in the antitrust lawsuit. A court filing lays out exactly what happened during the discovery process. On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs notified Zuffa that Zuffa had produced a number of documents with an electronic "slipsheet" that states "This document has been withheld as privilege" [sic]. Despite the presence of the slipsheet, Zuffa had failed to remove the document itself from the production and produced an electronic file that contained the text of the document. It appears that five documents the UFC believes to be privileged were turned over to the fighters. The privilege status of four documents is not being challenged, but included among them is an e-mail from Strikeforce's VP of Legal Affairs to CEO Scott Coker with "legal advice regarding fighter contracts" and an analysis of four sets of agreements between a television network and its cable and satellite carriers "in contemplation of Zuffa's possible purchase of the television network." The document in which attorney-client privilege is being challenged is a Jan. 31, 2007 e-mail from C. Thomas Paschall, a corporate and transactional attorney at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, to Zuffa's CEO, COO, CFO, two Zuffa managers, and two other Milbank lawyers "containing confidential legal analysis and advice relating to the acquisition of PRIDE FC." That would seem to make it a privileged document but the fighters have a different story. They argue that even though the e-mail is from a UFC attorney, there is only one sentence which meets the standard for attorney-client privilege. Other than that, the e- mail "simply rehashes the respective positions of parties to an arms-length business transaction." The fighters believe that communications regarding the business purposes of an acquisition "are ordinary, common business decisions" and should not be privileged. Their position is that the e-mail gives a status report on PRIDE negotiations and shares the UFC's business strategy in the acquisition. One particular paragraph in the e-mail "reiterates Zuffa's business purpose in the Pride FC acquisition and recounts Pride FC's response to Zuffa's offer." The fighters spend two paragraphs restating claims from their complaint that the UFC's acquisition of PRIDE is a "Material Allegation," and was part of an anticompetitive scheme to eliminate rivals. They requote Dana White's famous line, "Pride is dead dummy! I killed em!!!" and cite Brent Brookhouse's 2012 Bloody Elbow piece in which White denies killing PRIDE, "We didn't kill Pride. I've said this many times, Pride is the only other organization that I've ever respected." Given what we know so far, it seems likely that the paragraph in question would fall into one of two categories. It might be used in a direct attempt to contradict the UFC's denial that it purchase PRIDE in an anticompetitive scheme to eliminate rivals. It could also be used more along the lines of a "hot doc" where an insider makes a statement that reveals a true intention or simply looks bad. This would be the case if the e-mail contains some sort of statement about how dominant the UFC will be after the purchase, how it will have X% of the market, or won't have to compete as hard for fighters. Then again, maybe it's more of a "lukewarm doc." We just don't know. The e-mail in question has been filed under seal with the following placeholder. Whatever the exact text of the e-mail, it's highly unlikely to make or break the case, but there's clearly something the fighters want to be able to use and the UFC doesn't want an expert witness or jury to see. Somewhere out there, Sakakibara is probably smiling. The fighters have asked the judge to hear arguments on their motion to challenge the UFC's privilege designation at the next status conference on Apr. 25. UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certified in "Ward" Suit Over Pilot Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Alsup granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned CHARLES E. WARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, No. C 15-02309 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Charles E. Ward sued United Airlines, Inc., seeking to represent a putative class of 2,660 pilots that worked for United in California from April 3, 2014 and asserting claims based on inaccuracies in the wage statements that United issued to its pilots. United argued that, except for numerosity, Ward failed to establish the prerequisites for certification required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). Judge Alsup disagreed with United and the judge certified a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) as follows: "All persons who are or were employed by United Airlines, Inc., as pilots for whom United applied California income tax laws pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40116(f)(2) at any time from April 3, 2014, up to April 3, 2015." Ward was appointed as class representative and his counsel, Jackson Hanson LLP, was appointed as class counsel, with Attorney Kirk D. Hanson to serve as lead counsel. A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's March 23, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/9x5JqJfrom Leagle.com. Charles E. Ward, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk David Hanson, Jackson Hanson LLP & Jeffrey C. Jackson, Jackson Hanson LLP. United Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Alan Siegel -- rsiegel@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Susannah Kelly Howard -- showard@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. UNITY RECOVERY: Violated FLSA & WARN Act, "Hartel" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Hartel and Steve Kolb, and similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, v. Unity Recovery Center, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Jason Ackner, an individual, Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80471-JIC (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2016), seeks to recover compensation for lost wages, insurance, severance pay, and any other benefits owed, with prejudgment interest; compensatory damages for Plaintiffs' pain and suffering; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Whistleblower's Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), the Comprehensive Omnibus Reconciliation Act (COBRA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Unity Recovery Center is a holistic drug rehab and alcohol treatment center. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brant C. Hadaway, Esq. DIAZ REUS & TARG, LLP 100 Southeast Second Street 3400 Miami Tower Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375 9220 Facsimile: (305) 375 8050 E-mail: bhadaway@diazreus.com - and - Harry N. Turk, Esq. HARRY N. TURK, P.A. 1 S.E. 3d Avenue, Suite 2900 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: hturk@turklaw.org UNUM LIFE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Class Claim in "Davis" ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARY DAVIS and NITA SCOGGINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv- 00640-KGB (E.D. Ark.), Judge Kristine G. Baker granted the request of Unum Life Insurance Company of America to dismiss the plaintiffs' "exercise of discretion" claim. The judge also granted Mary Davis' motion to dismiss her claim with prejudice after Davis represented to the court that her individual claim has been settled. Nita Scoggins brought an individual breach of contract claim alleging that Unum wrongly denied her claim for long term disability (LTD) benefits under an employer-provided disability insurance benefit plan underwritten and administered by Unum. Scoggins also brought a class action claim against Unum, alleging that by denying LTD benefits, Unum "exercised discretion in the interpretation of said policies in a manner that violates the law." Unum moved to dismiss Scoggins' class claim, arguing that her allegation "that Unum 'exercised discretion' does not state any claim for relief." Scoggins responded and moved to amend her complaint. Judge Baker agreed with Unum that Count II of Scoggins' amended complaint fails to state a claim. The judge explained that even assuming that the disability policy included a discretionary clause in violation of Arkansas law at the time that Unum denied Scoggins' claim, this "exercise of discretion" is not actionable conduct because a plan administrator's authority to grant or deny benefit claims is not derived from discretionary clauses. Judge Baker also denied Scoggins' proposed second amended complaint, finding that it does not correct the defects included in the amended complaint and would therefore be futile. Scoggins' individual claim for breach of contract remains pending. A full-text copy of Judge Baker's March 22, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/b1rxVhfrom Leagle.com. Mary Davis, Nita Scoggins, Plaintiff, represented by Luther Oneal Sutter, Sutter & Gillham, PLLC & Paul Gerard Pfeifer, Pfeifer Law Firm, P.A.. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Defendant, represented by David M. Donovan -- david.donovan@wdt-law.com -- Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A.. UPTOWN WEST: Faces "Taveras" Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Uptown West Inc. The case is captioned Arturo Velasquez Julian, and Daniel Taveras Alvarado, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uptown West Inc., doing business as: 107 West, Hillview Specialty Foods Inc., doing business as: 107 West, Merlion Specialty Foods Inc., doing business as: Next Door, Thomas Hui, Stephen Blumenthal, Soom Hui, also known as: Simon Hui, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02359 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, March30, 2016). Uptown West is engaged in apartment rental business. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Morris" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- Ira A. Morris, the Plaintiff, v. James F. Neale, Esq., Megan Cloud, Esq., Mcguirewoods LLP, and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 16-C-31, was removed from Boone County Circuit Court, to the US District Court for the Southern District for West Virginia. The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02847 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserted against the Defendants allegations concerning the widely publicized Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Violation dated September 18, 2015 concerning the alleged installation of emissions testing "defeat devices" in certain Volkswagen and Audi 2.0 liter diesel vehicles. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Neely, Esq. NEELY & CALLAGHAN 159 Summers Street Charleston, WV 25301 E-mail: rneely@neelycallaghan.com The Defendants are represented by: Bryant J. Spann, Esq. David B. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC 300 Summers Street, Suite 1380 P.O. Box 3824 Charleston, WV 25338-3824 Telephone: (304) 414 1800 Facsimile: (304) 414 1801 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Committee Formed for Dealer Settlement Talks -------------------------------------------------------------- Auto News reports that Volkswagen retailers tapped a five-member committee to open settlement talks with the automaker aimed at recovering financial damages sustained by VW's 652 U.S. dealerships in the wake of the company's emissions crisis. The decision came at a nearly two-hour dealer-only meeting on the sidelines of the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas, and ahead of a make meeting where VW brand Chairman Herbert Diess and North America chief Hinrich Woebcken are expected to speak to dealers. Jason Kuhn, chairman of Kuhn Automotive Group in Tampa and one of the five negotiators named to the committee, said the quintet hope to begin settlement talks with VW leadership as soon as possible. Mr. Kuhn said it was too early to discuss what forms of compensation an acceptable settlement should include. "The task is to meet with the Germans to negotiate a settlement for the dealers and to bring a settlement package back that we feel is acceptable to get past this," Mr. Kuhn told Automotive News after the private meeting on April 1. "At the end of the day, we both need to get past this, and doing it in a courtroom is not acceptable." Mr. Kuhn said the other members of the committee are: -- Mike Sullivan, who owns two VW stores as part of his LAcarGuy network of dealerships in Southern California -- Jimmy Ellis, president of the Jim Ellis Automotive Group, which has two Atlanta-area VW dealerships -- Richard Fisher, owner of the Autobarn Evanston Dealer Group, which has one VW dealership in Evanston, Ill. -- Jack Bertolet Jr., president of J. Bertolet Volkswagen in Orwigsburg, Pa. Talk of dealer lawsuits against the factory have gained momentum in recent weeks following the abrupt departure of VW of America CEO Michael Horn on March 9. Leonard Bellavia, a prominent dealer attorney based in Mineola, N.Y., told Automotive News that he had already drafted a dealer lawsuit seeking class action status, but that his clients were awaiting the conclusion of Saturday's make meeting before deciding how to proceed. By forming the committee, VW dealers aim to reduce the risk that restive dealers will sue the automaker in large numbers. 'Almost unanimous consensus' Mr. Kuhn said the "almost unanimous consensus" of VW dealers who attended today's meeting, which he estimated represented at least half of VW's U.S. dealerships, was to avoid litigation "and start selling cars again." "These are our business partners and we're going to be in business with them for a long time," he said, "and we do not want to be on the other side of the aisle from them in a courtroom." Some individual dealers may still sue, he acknowledged, but forming the negotiating committee would help to unify most dealers behind an out-of-court compensation process. "The dealer network, I believe, has been splintered up until now, and I believe that we are now more unified than before, at least since this crisis began," Mr. Kuhn said. "This is a tremendous success that came out the meeting." VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Lambert" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672 --------------------------------------------------------- Mary Lambert, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02036, was transferred from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the US District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv- 01566-CRB to the proceeding. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Lambert case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold by Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A Davis, Esq. Patrick Ryan Busby, Esq. Soren Erik Gisleson, Esq. Stephen J. Herman, Esq. HERMAN MIDDLETON CASEY & KITCHENS LLP 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581 4892 E-mail: pbusby@hhklawfirm.com sgisleson@hhkc.com WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Ferry Ticket Expiration Dates ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kiro 7 News reports that for people who regularly ride Washington State Ferries, buying tickets in bulk ahead of time is often the best bet because they're discounted about 20 percent. But prepaid Wave2Go tickets expire after 90 days. "You pay this large quantity of money and you expect to use all the rides but sometimes you don't. But you will, especially living on the island," said Lila Jones, who grew up on Bainbridge Island She knows passengers don't get a refund on rides they don't use. "I've known family friends to make copies of their pass and divide it up between three plus (or) more families just because people can't get through the pass in the amount of time they're allowing before it expires," Ms. Jones said. Attorney Jason Dennett -- jdennett@tousley.com -- of Tousley Brain Stephens is suing the state on behalf of a Vashon Island resident, KIRO 7 reports. He hopes to make it a class-action lawsuit by claiming a violation of the state law against expiring gift cards. "It's called the gift certificate act, but it really applies to every stored value card," said Mr. Dennett, who says that includes ferry tickets. The state says ferry tickets have had expiration dates since the 1980s. "As far as I know, this is the first time this has been brought against the ferry system," Mr. Dennett said. But state officials pointed KIRO 7 to a similar 2010 lawsuit that was later dismissed. They say Washington law explicitly differentiates between gift cards and fare cards like Wave2Go. Washington State Ferries says the multi-ride fares are meant to benefit regular riders. If there were no expiration dates, officials say, everyone would buy them at the discount, and there wouldn't be enough money to keep the system going. WELLS FARGO: Engaged in Improper Collection, "Miller" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Miller, and Samantha Phillips, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21145-JAL (S.D. Fla., Miami Div. March 31, 2016), seeks to recover damages for Wells Fargo's improper collection of post-payment interest. The Defendant has a systematic practice of collecting "post- payment" interest on loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration without first complying with the uniform provisions of the promissory notes and the FHA regulations governing these loans. As a result, Wells Fargo has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in post-payment interest in an unlawful manner, and through this breach of contract class action, Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for those class members already injured and declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future violations by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo Bank provides personal, small business, and commercial banking services. The bank is headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett M. Amron, Esq. BAST AMRON LLP One Southeast Third Ave Ste 1400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 379 7904 E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com - and - Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq. Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W Peachtree St NW, Ste 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881 4151 E-mail: rosenwasser@bmelaw.com ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com - and - Adam Hoipkemier, Esq. Matthew Wetherington, Esq. THE WERNER LAW FIRM 2860 Piedmont Rd NE Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 564 4329 E-mail: adam@wernerlaw.com matt@wernerlaw.com WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Clark" Suit in S.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------------- Walter Clark and Stephanie Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Windsor Window Company, doing business as: Windsor Windows and Doors, and Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00721- SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis, March 31, 2016). The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Hon. Mark J. Dinsmore. Windsor Window Company manufactures and distributes windows and doors for contractors, architects, and homeowners. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn David Bowman, Esq. SMITH AMUNDSEN, LLC 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1400 Capital Center, South Tower Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 639 5454 Facsimile: (317) 632 1319 E-mail: gbowman@katzkorin.com WORLD WIDE VACATIONS: Faces "Makaron" Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against World Wide Vacations, LLC. The case is captioned Edward Makaron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. World Wide Vacations, LLC, RCI LLC, and Interval International Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02168 (C.D. Cal., Western Division - Los Angeles, March 30, 2016). Worldwide Vacation provides condo resort reservation services. The Plaintiff appears pro se. * Employers Face Risk of Background Check, Credit Report Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Christina A. Pate, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that if you haven't done so recently, now is a good time to review your company's use of background checks and credit reports. The increasing number of class actions and high-dollar settlements highlight the risks employers face when obtaining background checks or credit reports on current and potential employees. Failure to comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act's (FCRA) strict technical requirements pertaining to the use of "consumer reports," which includes background checks and credit reports, has cost employers hundreds of thousands -- even millions -- of dollars in class action litigation and settlement agreements. For example, Whole Foods, in a settlement that is small in comparison to other recent FCRA class action settlements, paid over $800,000 to settle a class action involving 20,000 class members. Chuck E. Cheese paid $1.75 million, the parent company for the grocery store Food Lion paid almost $3 million, Home Depot paid $3 million, Dollar General paid approximately $4 million, and Publix Super Markets paid $6.8 million. Companies may be inclined to settle when facing statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation and class members of 20,000 or more, because there is no cap on the recovery of statutory damages under the FCRA. Plaintiffs also can recover attorneys' fees and costs plus punitive damages. For example, although Whole Foods paid $800,000 to settle, it could have faced between $2 million to $20 million in damages. These settlements represent only a fraction of the recently-filed FCRA class actions. In 2015, class actions were filed against companies such as Chipotle, Michael's, Dollar Tree, Big Lots, Avis, Amazon, Pizza Hut, and Universal Studios. These class action suits allege very technical violations of the FCRA's requirements. Examples of violations that have led to lawsuits include: Failure to provide a standalone disclosure. The FCRA requires that applicants or employees receive a "clear and conspicuous" written disclosure informing them that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes and they must provide written consent before the employer may obtain a consumer report. The disclosure must be in a "standalone" document -- that is, the document consists solely of the disclosure. The disclosure cannot include other information, such as a liability release, and cannot be buried in the middle of an employment application or other pre- employment documents. Failure to provide required information to applicants or employees before taking an adverse action based on a consumer report. Employers must provide a copy of the report and a written "summary of rights" to an individual before taking an adverse action, such as refusal to hire, termination, or other similar negative employment action. Employers also must provide the individual a reasonable time to respond or to dispute the report before taking an adverse action. Failure to provide additional detailed information to an applicant or employee after taking an adverse action. This includes notice of the adverse action based on the consumer report, specific information related to the consumer reporting agency that provided the report, and notice of the consumer's rights to obtain a copy of the report within 60 days and to dispute the information in the report. To minimize risk, ensure that your company's background check and credit report process, including all relevant forms, complies with the FCRA's requirements, including those outlined. In addition, ensure that background checks and credit reports are used only when permissible under applicable state and local law. Finally, ensure that your application complies with applicable state and local "ban the box" laws -- laws that prohibit employers from asking job applicants questions about criminal history on a job application. * Firefighting Foam Likely Cause of Delaware C8 Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Mordock, writing for The News Journal, reports that Delaware has some of the nation's highest concentrations of the toxic chemical C8 in its water supplies, in some cases exceeding levels found near Parkersburg, West Virginia. But DuPont isn't the likely culprit here. Environmental studies and experts, including Delaware's Division of Waste and Hazardous Substances, Artesian Water and New Castle County officials, almost unanimously say the cause of the contamination is fire firefighting materials used at two air bases. "We've tied it back to the firefighting foam," said Tim Ratsep, of Delaware's Division of Waste and Hazardous Substances. "Everything we have found so far does not indicate a release from any DuPont operations." Since signs point to causes other than DuPont for the C8 contamination, a company spokesman did not feel it was appropriate to comment. Perfluorooctanoic acid, commonly referred to as PFOA, and its sister compound, perfluorooctane sulfoante, or PFOS, were discovered two years ago in the groundwater at Dover Air Force Base and near New Castle County Airport. The levels of the perfluorinated chemicals, better known as C8, found in wells near those locations rise far above the threshold recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for short-term human exposure to the contaminants. Contamination was detected in five wells near New Castle County Airport exposing more than 4,700 area residents over a two-year period to the chemical. High levels of the toxic chemicals have been linked to several illnesses including testicular and kidney cancers. However, since Delaware's PFOA and PFOS contamination was only discovered in 2014, it will not be clear for some time how the contamination is impacting residents' health. "People don't cancer get at a rapid rate," said Alan Ducatman, chair of the community medicine department at West Virginia University's medical school. "You have to start following a lot of people over time." EPA testing conducted in July 2014 found three wells in the City of New Castle had PFOA levels of 0.13 ppb, 0.094 ppb and 0.44 ppb and PFOS levels of 0.91 ppb, 0.82 ppb and 2.3 ppb. In Dover, tests revealed that a localized area of the Air Force Base had PFOS levels of 270 ppb and PFOA levels of 20 ppb. The EPA Provisional Health Advisory for the chemicals said the maximum levels humans can safely be exposed to in drinking water is 0.2 ppb for PFOS and 0.4 ppb for PFOA. Along the Ohio River near Parkersburg is some of the world's worst PFOA contamination. The levels of PFOA discovered in that region's water districts is lower than levels reported at the Air Force Base. Little Hocking, Ohio, for example had a PFOA level of 3.30 ppb, according to a 2005 EPA report. Another water system in Lubeck, Ohio, had PFOA levels of 3.20 ppb. C8 has been linked to thyroid disease, high cholesterol, liver damage, testicular and kidney cancers and pregnancy-induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia. The most recent data from the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services shows kidney cancer rates in Kent and New Castle counties, home to the two airfields, exceed the national average of 15.5 cases per 100,000 residents. Kent County has the state's highest incident of kidney cancer at 20.3 cases per 100,000 and New Castle County's kidney cancer rate is 16.4 cases per 100,000 residents. Sussex County where no PFOAs or PFOSs have been discovered, had a cancer rate of 14.7 cases per 100,000. "PFOA attaches itself to the liver, followed by the blood, followed by the kidney," said Mr. Ducatman. "It hits what we call our nuclear receptors." Among all forms of cancer, Delaware's mortality rate between 2007 and 2011 was 184.2 cases 100,000, 6 percent higher than the national average of 173.8 cases per 100,000. "Within DHSS we pay attention to health studies and what results we have in our database that might be relevant," said Ed Hallock, head of DHSS' Office of Drinking Water. No studies have yet linked Delaware's cancer rates to C8 contamination. "Hopefully, we can't tie it back to the water." Scientists say that just about everyone one Earth has traces of C8 in their bloodstream. Delaware isn't the only state battling PFOA issues. Three governors -- New York's Andrew Cuomo, Vermont's Peter Shumlin and New Hampshire's Maggie Hassan -- jointly authored a letter to EPA Administer Gina McCarthy. All three are dealing with PFOA-related compounds in public drinking water supplies. "It is clear that PFOA contamination is not a state or regional problem -- it's a national problem that requires federal guidelines and a consistent, science-based approach," the letter stated. Just across the Delaware River in Salem, New Jersey, sits Chambers Works, a former DuPont facility where Teflon was invented in 1938 and produced for many years. Chambers Works was transferred to Chemours as part of that company's spin off from DuPont last July and stopped Teflon production there. A group of Salem County residents filed a 2009 class-action lawsuit against DuPont claiming PFOA use at the plant tainted local drinking water. DuPont settled the case in 2011 for $8.3 million and admitted no wrongdoing. The company said at the time that settlement funds would be used to give members of the class- action suit the option of receiving a water filtration system or receiving the cash equivalent. In 2007, a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection report found PFOA levels in one Salem County well as high as 0.19 ppb. Of the 28 Salem County wells tested for the report, four came back with no traces of PFOA and nine were detected to have levels too low to quantify. DuPont has taken steps to eliminate the contamination around the Chambers Works plant, phasing out its use of PFOA at the site and around the world in 2013. The Environmental Working Group, which tracks PFOA contamination by state and county, said no PFOAs have been detected in Salem County as of 2015. Chemours spokeswoman Janet Smith said the company routinely monitors the groundwater near Chambers Works to ensure "protection and regulatory compliance." She said the company works closely with the EPA and state regulatory agencies to ensure it is following environmental guidelines. Chemours has never made or used PFOA since its launch last year. If PFOAs from Chambers Works leaked into the Delaware River it would not impact the state's drinking water because there is no water system in Delaware that takes water directly from the river, Mr. Hallock said. The culprit in Delaware, according to EPA studies, appears to be firefighting foam. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, or AFFF, became popular with the military and some civilian fire departments for its ability to smother fires from combustible liquids such as jet fuel and petroleum. AFFF contains PFOS and another formulation of the foam purchased by the Department of Defense contains compounds that can break down into PFOA. 3M manufactured PFOS-based AFFFs, but began to phase out using the toxic substance in its foam in 2002. Today, most firefighting foams contain neither PFOS nor PFOA in their original form, but can still break down into PFOA. An EPA fact sheet on C8, released in December 2015, directly links the chemicals to the firefighting foam at Dover Air Force Base. A July 2014 fact sheet regarding the PFOA and PFOS levels around New Castle County Airport, however, does not provide a cause. State and local officials said they understand the New Castle PFOA and PFOS levels are related to foam used at the airport. "We have heard it is firefighting foam, but the investigation hasn't been concluded by the EPA," said Pamela A. Patone, general manager for the Municipal Services Commission for the city of New Castle. "I can't comment on what the EPA will do." The Delaware Air National Guard stationed at New Castle County Airport still has AFFF on base, but has not used it since 2009, according to National Guard spokesman, Lt. Col. Len Gratteri. Mr. MGratteri said the Air Guard is assisting with groundwater analysis and collaborating with the EPA and DNREC to determine possible sources of contamination. In New Castle, city officials installed a carbon granulated water filtration system near the Airport in November to serve its 2,200 customers. The system is similar to the ones installed at the six water districts near Parkersburg that were impacted by PFOA contamination. Ms. Patone said the contaminated wells were shut down after the toxic chemicals were discovered, but have reopened since the filters were put in place. While the wells were shut down, the city bought water from Artesian Water Supply. The filter and water purchases have cost the city of New Castle $1.2 million. The city regularly samples water from those wells. "The only way to truly gauge the effectiveness of the treatment system is to test our water before it goes through the carbon filtration system and test if after it has been treated," said Jay Guyer, water supervisor for the city's Municipal Services Commission. Mr. Guyer said the system removes PFOA and PFOS after treatment, but prior to filtration chemical levels remain higher than the EPA's recommended guidelines. "It hasn't gone down," Ms. Patone said of the water's PFOA and PFOS levels prior to filtration. Questions about how much longer PFOA and PFOS will remain in the wells linger. The chemicals do not degrade in water. According to data from the EPA, the half-life of POFA and PFOS in water is 92 years and 41 years, respectively. "Is the contamination slowing going away?" Ms. Patone asked. "These are questions we've asked as part of the thought process to be prepared in the future, but we don't have the answers to that." Artesian Water Co. shut two commercial wells in New Castle in June 2014 after PFOS was detected. Combined, the two wells serve 2,500 customers. One of the wells, located in the Jefferson Farms neighborhood, returned online several months ago after the utility company spent roughly $1 million to install a carbon filtration system. The latest testing of untreated water at Jefferson Farms revealed PFOS levels ranging from .10 ppb to .59 ppb. The subdivision, Wilmington Manor, has not been sampled since January of 2014 when it went offline. Joseph A. DiNunnzio, Artesian's senior vice president, said the last reading showed PFOS levels ranging from .93 to 1.8. A second well in Wilmington Manor remains out of service. Mr. DiNunnzio said the well will go back online once a filter is installed. He expects the filtration system to be installed within the next year or so. "Because it is not a large water supply, there is not a sense of urgency," he said. The carbon filter's cost has been passed on to Artesian's customers, an amount Mr. DiNunnzio estimates to be a couple of pennies a month for each customer. Once the responsible party is conclusively identified, he said, Artesian will pursue efforts to be reimbursed for expenses related to the filter. "We are really interested in the EPA finishing the work to identify the responsible party or parties so they can pay to treat or remove the substance they placed into our supply," he said. "It is a cost that should not be borne by our customers." Mr. DiNunnzio said he agreed with those in the state pointing at the National Guard's use of firefighting foam. "I consider the National Guard the prime suspect, but it is important that the EPA conducts the proper analysis and review," he said. "You don't want to call someone guilty until you have the evidence to prove it." The Department of Defense this month announced it will test 665 military installations nationwide where fire or crash training using AFFF occurred, including Dover Air Force Base. Established in 1941, the base is home to the 436th Airlift Wing and the 512th Airlift Wing and the busiest air freight terminal in the Department of Defense. A force of about 11,100 is stationed there. Dover City Manager Scott Koenig said the EPA tested the city's public water systems in December 2014 and, again, in July 2015. He said the testing did not discover any PFOA or PFOS in the drinking supply. The Air Force Base uses its own water systems and does not feed into or take water from the city's public water utilities. Dover Air Force Base transitioned to an AFFF product that does not contain PFOS prior to 2012, according to base spokesman, Master Sargent Jeremy Larlee. He said all firefighting foams used at the base are in compliance with EPA guidelines for these products. Mr. Larlee said the Air Force is currently working with EPA and state regulators to investigate contamination at Dover Air Force Base. In addition, the Air Force is investigating installations where PFOS and PFOA may have been released to assess the potential for human exposure and, if necessary, take action to protect human health, according to Mr. Larlee. Mr. Ratsep said PFOA and PFOS exposure is limited to the areas surrounding the two airports. "There has not been any other areas in the state that we've found as a potential source," he said. ********* 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 * * *