/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160407.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 70 Headlines 218 DUVAL: Violated FLSA, "Woodbury" Suit Claims ALEXIAN BROTHERS: Illegally Charges Uninsured Patients, Suit Says ALIMENTOS CONGELADOS: Recalls Broccoli Cuts Due to Listeria ALLERGAN PLC: Bids to Dismiss Namenda Suits Await Ruling ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Cir. Appeal in Zymar/Zymaxid Case Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Celexa/Lexapro Suits v. Forest Labs ALLERGAN PLC: Units Dropped as Defendants in TCPA Class Suit ALLERGAN PLC: Illinois Court Rejects RICO Claims in TRT Suit ALLERGAN PLC: Employment Suit vs. Forest Labs in Discovery ALLERGAN PLC: Actonel(R) Cases in Initial Discovery Phase ALLERGAN PLC: 4 Actonel(R) Class Suits in Canada Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Alendronate Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Metoclopramide Case Ongoing ALLERGAN PLC: Propoxyphene Plaintiffs Must Show Cause by April 18 ALLERGAN PLC: 287 Testosterone Products Suits Pending v. Actavis ALLSTATE INSURANCE: MSPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida AMAYA INC: Faces "Weisman" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ARM SOLUTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orozco" Action Claims ASUDA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Wages, "Foote" Suit Says ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Perry" Suit in New Jersey Dist. Ct. ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES: Storm Investors' Class Action Dismissed B BRAUN MEDICAL: Recalls 5% Dextrose Injection BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Nylon Runners Due to Injury Risk BRINKER ARKANSAS: Faces "Keller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports C&J ENERGY: "Washburn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CABLE NEWS: Faces "Yi" Suit Over Constitutional Rights Violation CADETE ENTERPRISES: Ruling in Dunkin' Donuts Suit Reversed CHC WELLNESS: Fails to Pay Wages, "Lacriola" Suit Claims CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Exchange Offer CHICAGO, IL: Plaintiff Attorney May Appeal Red-Light Camera Case CLEAREDGE POWER: WARN Act Claims Compromise Approved COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation COMPLETE ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Tiner" Suit Claims COMPUTER SYSTEMS INSTITUTE: Violated WARN Act, "Jackson" Claims CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims CREATING X: Recalls Footed Pajamas Due to Burn Hazard CREATIVE HEALTH: "Leffler" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay EATALY AMERICA: Website Not Friendly to Blinds, "Del-Orden" Says ELEANOR ROSE: Recalls Children's Loungewear Due to Burn Risk EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: "Cox" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: A Third Look at the Implicit Guaranteee FISKARS BRANDS: Recalls Bypass Lopper Shears Due to Injury Risk FLOWERS FOODS: Recalls Cobblestone Wheat English Muffins FREDERICK J. HANNA: Illegally Collects Debts, "Goodwin" Suit Says GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Fire Alarm Panel Products GARDEN FRESH: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay GARMIN INT'L: Wins Class Action Over Personal Navigation Devices GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Everett Suit Transferred to New Jersey GIVENCHY: Recalls Men's Silk T-shirts Due to Burn Hazard GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Thatcher" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2657 GROSFILLEX INC: Recalls Side Chairs and Armless Bar Stools GRUBHUB INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Defends Products Amid Wen Hair Loss Class Suit HONDA NORTH AMERICA: Removes "Henriksen" Action to S.D. Florida INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR: Answer in "Callahan" Case Due July 1 INVISIBLU INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme JACKPOT JOANIES: Violated FLSA, "Littlefield" Suit Alleges JANSSEN INC: Invokana Safe for Diabetes Patients, Doctor Says KRAFT HEINZ: Violated UCL & CLRA, "Weiss" Suit Claims LARRY STIGERS EQUIPMENT: "Grimes" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay LEE SEED: Recalls Yogurt Super Soynuts Products Due to Milk LIFE PARTNERS: "Steuben" Suit Removed to Calif. Bankruptcy Court LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Skehan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring M.L. ZAGER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Griffin" Complaint Says MANHATTAN TOY: Recalls Table Top Toys Due to Chocking Hazard MERCY HEALTH: Retirement Plan Underfunded, "Lupp" Suit Claims MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gabay" Suit Says MONTEREY COLLECTION: "Laughner" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation MOUNTAIN VIEW MEDICAL: Violated FLSA, "Vanauken" Suit Claims NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussions Research "Flawed, Incomplete" NATIONWIDE CREDIT INC: Faces "Marinacci" Suit in E.D.N.Y. NEKASA INC: "Sevilla" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay NEW KO-SUSHI JAPANESE: Faces "Portillo" Suit in S.D.N.Y. NEW TECH GLOBAL VENTURES: Faces "Clay" Wage & Hour Suit NG & LIN CO: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Sir" Suit Claims NORTHEASTERN ASSET RECOVERY: Violated FDCPA, "Evensen" Suit Says OCEAN PROPERTIES: Faces "Bouton" Suit in S.D. Florida Ct. OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Purnel" Suit in S.D. Mississippi OMNINET VILLAGE: Faces "Stallworth" Suit Over Breach of Contract PALOS VERDES, CA: More People Want to Join Lunada Bay Boys Suit PJS OF PARMA: Faces "Calta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Faces "Dillard" Securities Class Action PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Nahari" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation PULASKI COUNTY, AR: Faces Class Action Over Livestock Ban QUALITY FOOD: Recalls Cranberry Chicken Salad Due to Pecans RAPID ROD: Violated FLSA, "Salazar" Suit Claims RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Giorgio" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ROLAND FOODS: Recalls Roasted Red Pepper Strips Due to Glass RW BAKERS: Recalls Plain Knot Rolls Due to Peanuts SEAVAND CORPORATION: "Martin" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Lee" Class Action in N.D. Ga. SHOP VAC: Settles Wet-Dry Vacuum Class Actions for $4.25 Million SNYDER'S-LANCE: Recalls Roasted & Salted Cashew Products SYSTEMS CONNECTION: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages THAMES LANDSCAPE: Faces "Varela" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TREMONT TOWING: Engaged in Illegal Towing, "Mas" Suit Claims US BANK: Faces "Smith" Suit in Florida Over Breach of Contract VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Vigorously Defend Cold-fx Ad Suit WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Franklin" Suit in Florida WORTH FINANCE: "Garcia" Action Seeks Overtime Pay * Senator Says Homeowners Need Coverage for Failing Foundations * EPA to Set PFOA Permanent Health Advisory Amid Class Actions ********* 218 DUVAL: Violated FLSA, "Woodbury" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------ Monica Woodbury, and Lea Mackenzie-Kerr, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 218 Duval Street Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-10014-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2016), asserts that the defendant improperly designated its core revenue-generating employees as independent contractors. The plaintiff, therefore, seeks to recover mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 218 Duval Street, doing business as Teaser's, is a highly erotic nightclub with a cast of international dancing beauties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Telephone: (954) 763 5722 Facsimile: (954) 763 5723 Email: chad@levylevylaw.com ALEXIAN BROTHERS: Illegally Charges Uninsured Patients, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arshad Qureshi, for himself and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated v. Alexian Brothers Health System, Case No. 2016-CH-04557 (Ill. Cir. Ct., March 31, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's practice of charging uninsured patients double and triple the rates charged to insured persons. Alexian Brothers Health System is an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation that provides health care services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Younes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH YOUNES, P.C. 166 W. Washington St., Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-112 ALIMENTOS CONGELADOS: Recalls Broccoli Cuts Due to Listeria ----------------------------------------------------------- Alimentos Congelados, S.A. (Pinula) is voluntarily recalling 1,800 cases of Frozen Broccoli Cuts because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The Frozen Broccoli Cuts were distributed to stores in the following states: Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and North Carolina. The affected Frozen Broccoli Cuts were distributed in poly bags under the following label and code: WYLWOOD Fresh Frozen Broccoli Cuts, NET WT. 16 OZ (1 LB), UPC 5193300110, with bag code: A25335P and A15335P The company has not received any complaints in relation to this product and is not aware of any illnesses associated with the product to date. The recall was the result of retail package of Frozen Broccoli Cuts being tested by the State of Ohio Department of Agriculture. The Frozen Broccoli Cuts had tested positive for Listeria Monocytogenes. The company has ceased distribution of Frozen Broccoli Cuts, and is fully cooperating with regulatory agencies. Consumers who purchased the Frozen Broccoli Cuts are urged not to consume this product and throw it away. Consumers requiring refund or with questions can contact the company at 1-800-888-4646 and ask for Consumer Affairs Monday thru Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00 PM EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/XOuFGA ALLERGAN PLC: Bids to Dismiss Namenda Suits Await Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- 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 motions filed by Forest Laboratories and its co- defendants to dismiss putative class action lawsuits by purchasers of Namenda(R) remain pending. On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda(R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November 2014 on the state's preliminary injunction motion. On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting the state's injunction motion and issued an injunction on December 15, 2014. On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction. On June 5, 2015, Forest filed a petition with the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc which was denied. Forest and the New York Attorney General reached a settlement on November 24, 2015. On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. Since that time, additional complaints have been filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws. On December 22, 2015, Forest and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the pending complaints of the putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. These motions remain pending. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities 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: 3rd Cir. Appeal in Zymar/Zymaxid Case 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 Plaintiff's appeal in the Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) litigation remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and ZYMAXID(R)gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed Allergan's motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an answer to Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015. On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)). On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 19, 2015, the court granted Allergan's motion to dismiss. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 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: Updates on Celexa/Lexapro Suits v. Forest Labs ------------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, 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, provided updates on various Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) class action lawsuits involving Forest Laboratories. Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in the federal district court Massachusetts (the "Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under the state consumer protection statutes and state common laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes. However, only the Missouri state class was certified. Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for $7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35 million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement. Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging that the promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been deceptive. On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20, 2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the motion. On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R)for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December 12, 2014 ruling. On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014. On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. Forest and certain of its affiliates are also named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court. These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R)and/or Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to resolve each matter for payments that are not material to our financial condition or results of operations. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ALLERGAN PLC: Units Dropped as Defendants in TCPA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 plaintiffs in a class action complaint alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation have voluntarily dismissed Allergan USA, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. as defendants from the litigation. A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a subsidiary of the Company, was filed in Missouri state court alleging claims for conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed a motion seeking certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification hearing until the FCC Petition was addressed. On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in Florida, purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent." On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted. In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the FCC. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed. On October 31, 2015, another class action complaint was filed in Missouri state court against Allergan USA, Inc., Warner Chilcott Corporation and Actavis, Inc. alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Missouri Consumer Fraud and Protection Act and conversion on behalf of a putative nationwide class of plaintiffs to who defendant Warner Chilcott Corporation sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Defendants removed this action to the federal district court for the Western District of Missouri on December 10, 2015 and responded to the complaint on February 8, 2016. On February 17, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendants Allergan USA, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. from the litigation. In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the application for review. On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda, Forest and several other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anda, Forest and other petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation. Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Illinois Court Rejects RICO Claims in TRT Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 a federal court has granted, in part, and denied, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy class action. On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R)product. This matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability multi-district litigation, notwithstanding that it is not a product liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after which plaintiff amended its complaint. Defendants then jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on February 3, 2016. The Court dismissed plaintiff's substantive RICO claims for mail and wire fraud for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to replead. The court also dismissed plaintiff's state law statutory claims and common law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. The Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) and its claims for negligent misrepresentation. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action. However, an adverse determination in the case could have an adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Employment Suit vs. Forest Labs in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 parties in an employment case against Forest Laboratories are beginning to work on discovery matters. In July 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in an action brought by certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal district court in New York. The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and former female sales representatives employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current, former, and future female sales representatives who were not compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during the applicable liability period. The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part, striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the Company has opposed. On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to conditionally certify a collective action. The litigation is still in its early stages and the parties are beginning to work on discovery matters. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ALLERGAN PLC: Actonel(R) Cases in Initial Discovery Phase --------------------------------------------------------- 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 is in the initial stages of discovery in the product liability cases related to Actonel(R). Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 194 cases and a potential defendant with respect to approximately 386 unfiled claims involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other things, that Actonel(R)caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have been filed in either federal or state courts in the United States. ALLERGAN PLC: 4 Actonel(R) Class Suits in Canada 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 Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class certification. Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two parties' co-promotion of the product in the United States and other countries. In addition, Warner Chilcott is partially indemnified by the Proctor & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical business in October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into two settlement agreements which resolved a majority of the then-existing ONJ-related claims which are subject to the acceptance by the individual respective claimants. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner Chilcott 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. ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Alendronate Litigation ----------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, 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, provided updates on the Alendronate litigation. Beginning in 2010, approximately 130 product liability suits on behalf of approximately 175 plaintiffs have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, including Cobalt Laboratories, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of alendronate for personal injuries including atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF") and osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ") allegedly arising out of the use of alendronate. The actions are pending in various state and federal courts. Several of the cases were consolidated in an MDL proceeding in federal court in New Jersey. In 2012, the MDL court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Any new cases against the Company filed in the MDL are subject to dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. Other cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal court in New York, where the Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The Court granted, in part, the motion to dismiss which has resulted in the dismissal of several other cases. The Company has also been served with nine cases that are part of a consolidated litigation in the California state court. In 2012, the California court partially granted a motion filed on behalf of all generic defendants seeking dismissal. Appeals in the California cases have been exhausted and the Company has not yet been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed against it. The remaining active cases are part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court. In the New Jersey proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a motion to dismiss. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these 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 our indemnification arrangements or insurance do 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. ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Metoclopramide Case Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ 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 discovery in the Metoclopramide litigation is in the preliminary stages as the Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either initiating or defending appeals on such motions. Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,500 cases remain pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs. Discovery in these cases is in the preliminary stages as the Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either initiating or defending appeals on such motions. The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late 2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis companies, the Company recently reached an agreement in principle to resolve the majority of the matters. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these 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 our indemnification arrangements or insurance do 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. ALLERGAN PLC: Propoxyphene Plaintiffs Must Show Cause by April 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 a Kentucky federal court has issued a Show Cause Order requiring plaintiffs in the Propoxyphene litigation to show cause on or before April 18, 2016 why their claims against the Generic Defendants should not be dismissed. Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,400 plaintiffs. A number of the cases were consolidated in a multi- district litigation in federal district court in Kentucky. On June 22, 2012, the MDL court granted the generic defendants' joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In addition, approximately 35 cases were filed in California state court. These cases were removed to federal district courts and, after disputes over whether the cases should be remanded to state court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the removals to federal court were proper. Many of the cases in California federal courts were transferred to the U.S. Disctrict Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and consolidated for all pretrial proceedings in front of Judge Reeves, who presided over the MDL proceedings. The Court has issued a Show Cause Order requiring plaintiffs to show cause on or before April 18, 2016 why their claims against the Generic Defendants (including Watson) should not be dismissed pursuant to the Court's prior order in the MDL dismissing all of the claims against the Generic Defendants with prejudice. Once the remaining procedural matters are resolved, the defendants will file demurrers and motions to dismiss the remaining suits. In addition, approximately eight lawsuits have been filed in Oklahoma which plaintiffs are seeking to have remanded from federal to state court. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these 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. ALLERGAN PLC: 287 Testosterone Products Suits Pending v. Actavis ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been served in approximately 287 currently pending actions related to testosterone products, all of which are pending in federal court in Illinois. Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R) testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate. Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been served in approximately 287 currently pending actions, all of which are pending in federal court. These actions have been consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois. The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint. Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims relating to any of Actavis' generic TRT products from the cases. These cases are in the initial stages and discovery is in the early stages. The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these 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. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: MSPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned MSPA Claims 1, LLC a Florida limited liability company, as assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the State of Florida v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 14-18500 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21148-RNS to the proceeding. The suit asserts Medicare Recovery claims. Headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois, Allstate Insurance Company is the second largest personal lines insurer in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Hasan Ruiz, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Ave, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 Facsimile: (866) 582-0907 E-mail: jruiz@msprecovery.com The Defendant is represented by: Rachel Marie La Montagne, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6300 Facsimile: (305) 381-9982 E-mail: rlamontagne@shutts.com AMAYA INC: Faces "Weisman" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Harvey Weisman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amaya Inc., David Baazov, and Daniel Sebag, Case No. 1:16-cv-02406 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 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. Amaya Inc. is a Canadian company traded on exchanges in both Canada and the United States, purporting to be a provider of technology-based products and services in the global gaming and interactive entertainment industries, and is the world's largest online poker company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: nespole@whath.com guiney@whath.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com Jake@blockesq.com Bradley@blockesq.com ARM SOLUTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orozco" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Orozco, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. A.R.M. Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00758-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal., March 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. A.R.M. Solutions, Inc. operates a collection agency providing custom debt recovery solutions for companies of all sizes in various markets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com ASUDA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Wages, "Foote" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------- Thomas Foote and Sean McCall, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Asuda Holdings LLC and Shamim M. Mohsin, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00180-O (N.D. Tex., March 3, 2016), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., by failing to pay their cashier employees for all hours worked and for overtime. The Plaintiffs seek to recover the unpaid wages owed to them resulting from this violation of law. The case is assigned to Judge Reed C O'Connor. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq. Mary L. Scott, Esq. James E. Hunnicutt, Esq. SPENCER SCOTT PLLC Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75240-6271 Tel: (972) 458-5319 Fax: (972) 770-2156 Email: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com mscott@spencerscottlaw.com jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Perry" Suit in New Jersey Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit and Finance Incorporated. The case is captioned Elizabeth Perry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Credit and Finance Incorporated, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01850-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Newark, April 3, 2016). Atlantic Credit & Finance purchases and manages unsecured and consumer-distressed assets. It also purchases various consumer- distressed asset types, including credit card receivables, retail credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities receivables. In addition, the company offers compensation and benefits packages, as well as manages consumer accounts. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Roanoke, Virginia with branch offices in Roanoke and Richmond, Virginia; and Phoenix, Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq. Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 459 7971 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Derby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Management Group, LLC, and Keith B. Cullen, Case No. 16-1051-c (Cmmw. Mass., March 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum overtime wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. The Defendants operate a general contracting and construction management company with several ongoing renovation projects within the Commonwealth. The Plaintiff is represented by: Preston W. Leonard, Esq. LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C. 63 Atlantic Avenue 3rd Floor Boston, MA 0211 Telephone: (617) 329-1295 E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES: Storm Investors' Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Moira Saville, Esq. -- moira.saville@au.kwm.com -- Chris Murphy, Esq., and Liam Burgess, Esq., of King & Wood Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, reports that early 2016 saw the failure of the first class action brought against an Australian regulator (in this case ASIC). The 2009 collapse of Townsville based Storm Financial Limited spawned several class actions against banks, most of which have been settled. In Lock v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] FCA 31 a group of Storm investors sued ASIC alleging breach of a duty of care and misfeasance in public office. The investors alleged that ASIC knew, or ought to have known, that Storm was failing to comply with its obligations under the Corporations Act and that ASIC should have warned investors of the risks, or taken regulatory action against Storm, in order to protect investors from the losses they suffered arising from their Storm investments. The Court found that the plaintiffs' pleading was deficient and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and therefore struck out the pleading in its entirety. In striking out the pleading, the Court refused leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleading. The proceedings were subsequently dismissed by consent (with the plaintiffs ordered to pay ASIC's costs of the proceedings). The case confirmed that ASIC does not owe a duty of care to investors whose interests it exists to protect. The result is also notable because very few class actions have been struck out in their entirety. In delivering its judgment, the Court considered in detail the principles that will apply in determining whether a statutory authority (like ASIC) will owe a party a duty of care. The general rule is that a statutory authority that is under no positive legislative obligation to exercise a power will not have a duty of care to third parties, unless by its conduct the authority places itself in a position that attracts a duty of care, and consequently calls for the exercise of that power. The Court found that the plaintiffs in the proceedings had failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against ASIC in respect of the alleged duty. The alleged duty was to avoid causing economic harm to the plaintiffs as investors, by ASIC exercising its powers with reasonable care to disclose risks to investors and/or by requiring Storm to minimize and avoid the risks. The Court held that it would be neither reasonable nor justifiable for investors to have relied upon ASIC's regulation of Storm as a basis for acting on Storm's advice, and that in any event the pleadings wholly failed to explain how the alleged negligence caused the plaintiffs' losses (or what those losses were). Similarly, the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the elements necessary to make out the tort of misfeasance in public office. Comments made by the Court regarding the personal responsibility of investors are interesting in the context of investor class actions. The Court noted that all class members were aware that they were entering a "risk-laden field of endeavor", and that they were acting in their own-self interest in taking advice from Storm with the hope of a return on their investment. Such an activity is not one that is inherently safe. The case is also a timely reminder that while regulatory bodies play a significant role in maintaining an efficient market and handling of enforcement in appropriate circumstances, investors will face a difficult battle should they attempt to sue such a regulator when things do go wrong. B BRAUN MEDICAL: Recalls 5% Dextrose Injection ---------------------------------------------- B. Braun Medical Inc. of Irvine, CA is voluntarily recalling one lot of 5% Dextrose Injection USP 100/150mL container (Lot #J5J706, catalog #S5104-5264, NDC 0264-1510-32) to the consumer level. B. Braun recently identified an adverse quality trend in customer complaints reporting that some containers in lot J5J706 exhibited leakage and, in a few instances, visible particulate matter identified to be microbial growth. To date all failures have been identified before the use of the product and there have been no reports of adverse events associated with this issue. A compromise of container integrity has the potential for leakage of the solution, usually identified prior to the use of the product. Leaking containers allow contamination of the solution, which can and has led to microbial contamination. Intravenous administration of a non-sterile product can result in serious infections that may be life-threatening. This product is intended for intravenous administration and may be used as a diluent and delivery system for intermittent administration of compatible drug additives. The product is packaged in B. Braun's PAB(R) (Partial Additive Bag) container with 64 units per case. The affected lot J5J706, which expires 10/31/2016, was distributed nationwide to licensed distributors, hospitals, and pharmacies. B. Braun is notifying its distributors and customers by certified mail and is arranging for the return of all recalled product. Distributors and customers that have inventory of lot J5J706, 5% Dextrose Injection USP 100/150mL container, should discontinue use immediately and contact B. Braun Medical Inc.'s Customer Support Department at 1-800-227-2862 Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST) for instructions for returning the affected product and to arrange for replacement product. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact B. Braun Medical Inc.'s Customer Support Department at 1-800-227-2862 Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST). Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product should be reported to B. Braun's Clinical and Technical Support Department at 1-800-854-6851. Additionally, any adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program: Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. B. Braun Medical Inc., a leader in infusion therapy and pain management, develops, manufactures, and markets innovative medical products and services to the healthcare industry. The company is committed to eliminating preventable treatment errors and enhancing patient, clinician and environmental safety. B. Braun Medical is part of the B. Braun Group of Companies in the U.S., which is headquartered in Bethlehem, Pa., and includes B. Braun Interventional Systems, Aesculap(R) and CAPS(R). Globally, the B. Braun Group of Companies employs more than 54,000 employees in more than 60 countries. Guided by its Sharing Expertise(R) philosophy, B. Braun continuously exchanges knowledge with customers, partners and clinicians to address the critical issues of improving care and lowering costs. To learn more about B. Braun Medical, visit www.BBraunUSA.com. BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Nylon Runners Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Black Diamond Ltd., of Salt Lake City, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about 185,000 Nylon Runners (in addition, 23,600 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A nylon runner with a tape splice (two cut ends joined by masking tape) will fail in normal use, posing a risk of death or injury due to a fall. This recall involves Black Diamond 18 mm wide nylon runners that are 60 cm/24 inch or 120 cm/48 inches long that have a tape splice (two cut ends joined by masking tape). The nylon runners were sold in red, blue, gold, green, gray and purple. "CE 0333" and 2014 or 2015 are printed on the sewn-in label. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/XpMmAw The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Eastern Mountain Sports, Hansen Mountaineering, The Gear Coop, Peak Experiences Inc., REI and other specialty outdoor stores nationwide and online at Backcountry.com and BlackDiamond.com from January 2014 through February 2016 for between $5 and $9. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nylon runners, inspect for the presence of a tape splice and contact Black Diamond for instructions on obtaining a free replacement nylon runner. BRINKER ARKANSAS: Faces "Keller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Keller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brinker Arkansas, Inc. and Brinker International, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00172-BSM (Ark. Cir. Ct., March 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Russellville, Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 303 West Main Street Post Office Box 39 Russell Ville, AR 72811 Telephone: (479) 880-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., Michael Carroll, Michael Pappagallo, and Steven Splain, Case No. 1:16-cv-02400 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 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. Brixmor Property Group Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate investment trust that operates a wholly-owned portfolio of grocery-anchored community and neighborhood shopping centers, with 518 properties located from California to Maine, including retailers such as the TJX Cos Inc. and The Kroger Co. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. Jennifer E. Traystman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 490-9550 Facsimile: (212) 986-0158 E-mail: Ctrinko@trinko.com - and - Joseph E. White III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com C&J ENERGY: "Washburn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Washburn and Aaron Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C&J Energy Services, Inc. and C&J Spec-Rent Services, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00106 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are providers of well construction, well completions and well services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Debes Jr., Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net CABLE NEWS: Faces "Yi" Suit Over Constitutional Rights Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chong Su Yi, and people of similarly situated v. Cable News Network and United States of America, Case No. 8:16-cv-00963-tdc (D. Md., March 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of Constitutional Rights. Cable News Network operates a cable and satellite television channel that is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System division of Time Warner. Chong Su Yi is a pro se plaintiff. CADETE ENTERPRISES: Ruling in Dunkin' Donuts Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark T. Kobata, Esq., and Marty Denis, Esq. of Barlow, Kobata and Denis, in an article for Workforce, report that the proper classification of employees as exempt remains one of the major drivers of class-action litigation in the employment context. The recent case of Marzuq v. Cadete Enterprises Inc. illustrates the difficulty of ensuring the proper classification of employees. The plaintiffs in Marzuq worked as store managers at Dunkin' Donuts. Their employers classified them as exempt executive employees based on their status as store managers. The plaintiffs contended that they had been misclassified as exempt because of the significant amounts of time they spent on nonexempt duties. The trial court granted summary judgment in the defendant's favor on the question of whether the plaintiffs were properly classified as exempt, finding that the plaintiffs were primarily engaged in bona fide executive activities as a matter of law, relying on Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 672 F.2d 221(1st Cir. 1982). The plaintiffs appealed and the 1st Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Among other issues, the court of appeals focused on the fact that the allegedly exempt plaintiffs were paid at rates comparable to their nonexempt subordinates. It noted that "[i]f, on an hourly basis, a manager's salary for performing a high percentage of nonexempt work is about the same as the wages of crew members for such work, the justification for exempting the manager from overtime pay is weakened." Marzuq v. Cadete Enterprises Inc., 807 F.3d 431 1st Cir. (Dec. 9, 2015). Impact: In evaluating whether employees have been properly classified as exempt, similarities in duties and pay between exempt and nonexempt workers should signal to the employer that exempt status is questionable and further scrutiny of the criteria for exempt status is warranted. CHC WELLNESS: Fails to Pay Wages, "Lacriola" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Lacriola, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. CHC Wellness, Inc., and Patrick Angelo III., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02826 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all the wages he earned pursuant to the agreement between him and Defendants. Plaintiff also raises a claim under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendants' unlawful termination of his employment after Plaintiff opposed Defendants' conduct and demanded payment of his earned wages. Plaintiff also brings a claim for breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel:(312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Exchange Offer ------------------------------------------------------------ Alyece Cummings and Daniel Lapka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02338 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2016), contends that Chesapeake's exchange offer impairs the rights of Plaintiffs and other Class members to received principal and interest and reduce the value of the notes held by the Class members. Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who beneficially held Chesapeake's (i) 6.875% senior notes due 2020 (CUSIP #165167BU0) (the "6.875% Notes") and (ii) 6.125% senior notes due 2021 (CUSIP #165167CG0) -- Class Notes -- from December 31, 2015 to the present. The 6.125% Notes were issued pursuant to an August 2, 2010 Indenture and a February 11, 2011 Fifth Supplemental Indenture thereto, while the 6.875% Notes were issued pursuant to a November 8, 2005 Indenture, each between Chesapeake, the Guarantors party thereto, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee. The Class Notes are senior unsecured obligations of Chesapeake, which rank equally in right of payment with all of the Defendant's existing and future senior unsecured indebtedness. Chesapeake on December 2, 2015, announced a proposed private debt exchange whereby it would exchange and replace certain Class Notes as well as certain 6.625% Notes, 5.375% Notes, 6.25% Notes, 6.5% Notes, 7.25% Notes, Floating Rate Notes, 4.875% Notes, and 5.75% Notes, for newly-issued 8.00% Second Lien Senior Secured Notes due 2022. The Exchange Offer was consummated on December 31, 2015. Specifically, $3.856 billion in aggregate principal amount of the notes was exchanged in the Exchange Offer for $2.369 billion of 8.00% 2L Notes. While approximately $1.5 billion aggregate principal amount of Class Notes was outstanding prior to the Exchange Offer, approximately $606.5 million aggregate principal amount of Class Notes was tendered in the Exchange Offer. Thus, approximately $893.5 million in principal value of Class Notes was not tendered in the Exchange Offer. Even though the Class Notes were registered securities under the Securities Act, either at issuance or sold and later registered pursuant to a registration statement, Chesapeake made the Exchange Offer under exemptions to the Securities Act. Only holders of Class Notes who were eligible to participate in the Exchange Offer were QIBs within the meaning of Rule 144A of the Securities Act and non-U.S. persons within the meaning of Rule 902(k) of Regulation S of the Securities Act ("non-U.S. persons"). To be a QIB, an entity must, generally, own and invest, on a discretionary basis, at least $100 million in securities. For a broker-dealer, the threshold for QIB status is $10 million, and banks and savings and loan associations must also have a net worth of at least $25 million to satisfy the QIB criteria. The Defendant's decision created two classes of holders of Class Notes with very unequal rights not based on any specific term of the Indentures. On one hand, the QIBs were entitled to exchange Class Notes for new, secured 8.00% 2L Notes. On the other hand, the non QIBs were denied the opportunity to participate in the Exchange Offer. According to the lawsuit, Chesapeake stridently disclosed the risks to holders of Class Notes if they did not exchange their bonds for 8.00% 2L Notes in the Exchange Offer, while simultaneously denying Class members the opportunity to participate in the Exchange Offer. The direct effect of the Exchange Offer and the issuance of the 8.00% 2L Notes is that the obligations evidenced by the Class Notes are now subordinate to the obligations evidenced by the 8.00% 2L Notes. While the Class Notes are senior unsecured obligations of Chesapeake, which rank equally in right of payment with all of Defendant's existing and future senior indebtedness, the Exchange Offer subordinates the Class Notes held by Class members to the QIBs who elected to exchange their Class Notes for 8.00% 2L Notes. In doing so, Chesapeake impaired Class members' right to receive payment of the principal and interest under the Class Notes and the right to institute suit to compel such payment. This disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and other holders of Class Notes violated Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77aaa-77bbbb, and the Indentures themselves. The lawsuit contends that the Defendant's decision to pursue this transaction benefiting only themselves and a minority of holders of Class Notes violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The decision of Chesapeake to engage in a private exchange offer for existing notes open only to QIBs, notwithstanding the fact that the Class Notes were sold pursuant to registration statements and purchased by non-QIBs, was unfair to holders of Class Notes who were excluded from the Exchange Offer. The risk of such a private exchange offer was not disclosed by Chesapeake in their offering prospectuses for the Class Notes, nor could it have been foreseen by Plaintiffs or the other Class members at the time they purchased their Class Notes. Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a producer of oil and gas. The other defendants are: AMGS, L.L.C., Carmen Acquisition, L.L.C., Chesapeake Acquisition, L.L.C., Chesapeake AEZ Exploration, L.L.C., Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., Chesapeake Eagle Canada Corp., Chesapeake Energy Louisiana Corporation, Chesapeake Energy Marketing,Inc., Chesapeake Eno Acquisition, L.L.C., Chesapeake EP, L.L.C., Chesapeake E&P Holding Corporation, Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership, Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Chesapeake Land Company, L.L.C., Chesapeake Land Development Company, L.L.C., Chesapeake Louisiana,L.P., Chesapeake Midstream Development, L.L.C., Chesapeake Midstream Holdings, L.L.C., Chesapeake Midstream Management L.L.C., Chesapeake NFW, L.P., Chesapeake NG Ventures Corporation, Chesapeake Operating, Inc., Chesapeake Orc, L.L.C., Chesapeake Permian, L.P., Chesapeake Plaza, L.L.C., Chesapeake PRH Corp., Chesapeake Royalty, L.L.C., Chesapeake Sigma, L.P., Chesapeake South Texas Corp., Chesapeake VRT, L.L.C., Chesapeake West Texas Gathering, L.L.C., Chesapeake Zapata, L.P., Chesapeake-Clements Acquisition, L.L.C., Chesapeake-Staghorn Acquisition L.P., CHK Energy Holdings Corporation, CHK Holdings Corporation, CHK Holdings, L.L.C., Compass, The Plaintiff is represented by: Meagan Farmer, Esq. Mark C. Gardy, Esq. James S. Notis, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-905-0509 Fax: 212-905-0508 Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com jnotis@gardylaw.com mfarmer@gardylaw.com - and - Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. Gordon Z. Novod, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: 646-722-8500 Fax: 646-722-8501 Email: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com gnovod@gelaw.com CHICAGO, IL: Plaintiff Attorney May Appeal Red-Light Camera Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Brockway, writing for DNAinfo, reports that the plaintiffs also argued Chicago did not re-enact its own municipal law after the state passed its red-light camera law in 2006. They also claim because the law was crafted to only apply in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair and Will counties -- and not in all Illinois counties -- the law violated Illinois' constitution. But the judge shot down these arguments as well and agreed with city lawyers who argued the state law was constitutional and the city's law was still valid. Lead plaintiff attorney Patrick Keating was disappointed in the judge's ruling. "We're a disappointed and a little surprised by the ruling," he said. Steve Patton, the city's Corporation Counsel, was happy with the judge's decision to dismiss this case. "We are pleased that the court dismissed this lawsuit and found the red-light automated enforcement program to be legal and constitutionally sound," Mr. Patton said in a statement. The suit also contended the city had issued 77,000 tickets improperly at intersections where yellow light times were below the 3-second minimum set by federal transportation standards, with some yellow light times as low as 2.89 seconds. While Mr. Novak conceded the possible safety issues with short yellow light times, she agreed with the city's argument that there's no legal force behind the U.S. Department of Transportation's guidelines on street light timing as there's no law on the books mandating minimum yellow light times. Mr. Keating was not sure if they'll appeal the Novak's ruling, but is leaving all possibilities on the table. "The option at this point would be a motion to reconsider and possibly an appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court," he said. "We're still evaluating those options." Just six weeks ago, Judge Kathleen Kennedy dealt a blow to the city when she allowed a separate lawsuit challenging how the city administrates its red light and speed camera program to move forward. That lawsuit alleges the city did not follow its own municipal code when it didn't mail a second notice of violation and then prematurely doubled fines at 21 days instead of the 25 days spelled out in the law. Chicago's red-light camera program is the nation's largest with 302 cameras at 147 intersections. CLEAREDGE POWER: WARN Act Claims Compromise Approved ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles Novack on March 21, 2016, approved the settlement that CEP Reorganization, Inc., formerly known as ClearEdge Power, Inc., and its affiliate, CEP Reorganization, LLC, entered into with class representative, Peter Wojciechowski. As reported in the March 15, 2016 edition of the TCR, the Settlement Agreement resolves the claims alleged in Adversary Proceeding No. 14-4152, entitled Peter Wojciechowski v. ClearEdge Power, Inc., ClearEdge Power, LLC. Mr. Wojciechowski filed the Adversary Proceeding, alleging that CEP and CEP, LLC failed to provide 60 days written notice to its employees before ordering mass layoffs and plant closings, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). Mr. Wojciechowski sought payment for himself and the Class Members for all unpaid wages, including unpaid accrued vacation pay and fringe benefits. Mr. Wojciechowski contends that should he prevail in the litigation, the WARN Act priority claim of the approximately 260 Class Members for 60 days wages and benefits would be approximately $4.9 million. The total damages within the priority cap of $12,450 for the class members is approximately $3.2 million, assuming no other priority wages are owed, plus attorneys' fees and expenses, and that such claims are entitled to priority status. The Debtors relate that litigation of the WARN Class Action would be protracted and expensive. They contend that the terminations were caused by sudden and dramatic events outside of their control and that at the time WARN notice was due, CEP and CEP, LLC were actively seeking capital or financing that would have allowed it to avoid the terminations. The Debtors further contend that unforeseeable business circumstances and faltering company exceptions to the WARN Act excused CEP and CEP, LLC from providing 60 days written notice to their employees in advance of their termination. The Settlement Agreement contains, among others, the following key terms: (a) Settlement Amount: The Settlement Class will have an allowed claim under 11 U.S.C. Section 507(a)(4) in the total amount of $1,300,217, from which the Class Representative Payment and Class Counsel's fees and expenses shall be paid, to the extent approved by the Bankruptcy Court. (b) Distribution of Settlement Amount: Distributions to individual Eligible Class Members shall be allocated to each Class Member on a pro rata basis based on the relationship that such Class Member's potential damages under the WARN Act bears to the aggregate potential damages of all Class Members under the WARN Act and shall be made contemporaneously with the payment of Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses and the Class Representative Payment. (c) Payment to Class Representative: A one-time payment in the amount of $10,000, payable from the Settlement Amount to the Class Representative Peter Wojciechowski, as compensation for his services to the Class in addition to his pro rata share of the Settlement Amount. (d) Class Counsel's Fees: Provides for attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third, net of litigation expenses, from the Settlement Amount. (e) Release of Defendants: Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, the Class Members shall release Defendants CEP and CEP, LLC and their respective bankruptcy estates, each of the Defendants' current and former shareholders, officers, directors, employees, accountants and attorneys, among others, excluding any third parties which may or may not be affiliated with Defendants including Kohlberg Ventures LLC of any and all claims which relate or are based on the WARN Action or claim under federal, state or local law or regulation arising out of the termination of the Class Members' employment by Defendants. Sunnyvale, California-based ClearEdge Power Inc. and two other affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Lead Case No. 14-51955) on May 1, 2014, in San Jose. Affiliates ClearEdge Power, LLC, and ClearEdge Power International Service, LLC, are based in South Windsor, Connecticut, where the manufacturing operations are located. Privately held ClearEdge designs, manufactures, sells and services distributed generation fuel cell systems for commercial, industrial, utility and residential applications. ClearEdge bought United Technologies Corp.'s UTC Power division in late 2012. ClearEdge sought bankruptcy protection just a week after shutting operations. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Ann McNutt, Bobbie Jean Richard, Dallas Richard, Steve Percox, Martin Griffin, Ashley Veciana, Richard Dale Floyd, Melissa Cooper, Melissa Cooper, Jane Angel-Lopez, Joan Crespin, Barbara Lujan, Lisa Maes, Myrtle Keene, Myrtle Keene, Cynthia Horgan, William Lutz, David Smith, and Cynthia Ann Martin Stonestreet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-00698 (M.D. Tenn., April 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendants are providers of general hospital healthcare services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher T. Hellums, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Pl, #1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com - and - Christopher J. Zulanas, Esq. Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq. John Michael Bowling, Esq. FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, P.C. 3800 Corporate Woods Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 E-mail: czulanas@friedman-lawyers.com jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com mbowling@friedman-lawyers.com - and - Clinton H. Scott, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC 101 North Highland Ave Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: (731) 664-1340 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com - and - Donald W. Stewart, Esq. Dylan Reeves, Esq. STEWART & STEWART PC 1826 3rd Avenue North, Suite 300 Bessemer, AL 35021 E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com dreeves@stewartandstewart.net - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Mary Lou Boelcke, Esq. Turner W. Branch, Esq. THE BRANCH LAW FIRM 2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW Albuquerque, NM 87104 Telephone: (505) 243-3501 Facsimile: (505) 243-3534 E-mail: mlboelcke@branchlawfirm.com tbranch@branchlawfirm.com COMPLETE ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Tiner" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------- Adam Tiner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Complete Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Superior Fluid Management, Inc. and Superior Energy Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00885 (S.D. Tex., Houston Div, April 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Complete Energy Services provides well services. The Company offers drilling rigs and rig manufacturing services to develop hydrocarbon reserves, reduce cost, and enhance production. Complete Energy Services operates in the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751 0025 Facsimile: (713) 751 0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Facsimile: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com COMPUTER SYSTEMS INSTITUTE: Violated WARN Act, "Jackson" Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Jackson, Nevia Saucedo, Jason Combes, Tinka Randle, Jamieta Hoskins, and Tianna Caeser, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Computer Systems Institute, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02798 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2016), alleges that former employees of the Defendant have been subject to a mass layoff that was not the result of a plant closing and which resulted in the termination of the employment of over one-third of CSI's workforce, and over 50 employees. Plaintiffs and the putative class allege that CSI failed to provide them with 60 days' notice as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, in violation of the law. The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all claims. Defendant CSI does business in Illinois, operates campuses in Illinois, and is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 763-6880 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Bibi Singh, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01810- SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April 1, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. operates a third party collection agency in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward B. Geller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C. 15 Landing Way Bronx, NY 10464 Telephone: (914) 473-6783 E-mail: epbh@aol.com CREATING X: Recalls Footed Pajamas Due to Burn Hazard ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Creating X LLC, of Carson City, Nev., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,400 Children's footed pajamas. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children. This recall involves two styles of children's footed pajamas. The first style is a child's 100% cotton one-piece, long-sleeved footed pajama with a zip-up closure starting from above the left ankle. The second style is a child's 100% cotton one-piece, long- sleeved footed pajama with a hood, two front pockets and a zip-up closure starting from the left ankle. The pajamas were sold in a variety of colors and patterns including solids, stripes, plaids, hearts, white snowflakes, yellow moon and white and blue stars, white bunnies and colored Easter eggs. The pajamas were sold in sizes infant large through kids large. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/fCxQdj The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold Online at www.Amazon.com, www.footedpajamas.com, www.sears.com and www.Zulily.com for $20 for infant sizes, $25 for toddler sizes and $30 for kid's sizes. Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from children, stop using them and contact Creating X for instructions on receiving a store credit towards another Creating X product. Creating X is contacting all purchasers of the recalled pajamas directly. CREATIVE HEALTH: "Leffler" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Audrey Leffler, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. Creative Health Services, Inc., Andrew Trentacoste, Kathy Kumitis, Tim Aleva and Karen Becker, Defendants, Case No. 161443 (E.D. Penn., March 30, 2016), seeks payment of wages, overtime pay and ERISA protected rights. Defendants willfully, intentionally and falsely recorded and reported Plaintiff's and similarly situated "independent contractors" work time and hours worked for the purpose of wrongfully denying pay for all hours worked and to deny premium pay for all hour worked in excess of 40 hours in any given work week. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Drake, Esq. Bebe H. Kivitz, Esq. Jacob Kivitz, Esq. JACOBS KIVITZ & DRAKE, LLC 1525 Locust Street, 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 732-2656 Fax: (215) 600-3534 Email: bkivitz@jacobs-kivits-drake.com EATALY AMERICA: Website Not Friendly to Blinds, "Del-Orden" Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Del-Orden, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Eataly America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02361 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for denying blind individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services to their non- disabled customers through http://www.eataly.com. 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 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com ELEANOR ROSE: Recalls Children's Loungewear Due to Burn Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Eleanor Rose, of Natchez, Miss., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,900 Children's loungewear. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The loungewear fails to meet federal flammability standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children. This recall involves two different styles of Eleanor Rose loungewear, including a girl's gown and a boy or girl's top and pants set. The loungewear was sold in sizes 12 months through size 12. "Eleanor Rose" is printed on a tag sewn into the neck of the garments and on the back outside of the pants. The style number is on a tag sewn into the side seam or inside the back of the pants. The recalled loungewear style names and numbers include: Style Name Style Number ---------- ------------ Holly Child's lounge set 36-PP05 Nutcracker Clara gown 37-NC01 and 60-RN02 Nutcracker lounge set 37-NC02 Noel child's lounge set 39-NI04 Nutcracker striped lounge set 39-PJ01 Be Mine child's lounge set 40-BM05 Be Mine Rose gown 40-BM15 Be Mine striped gown 40-BM16 Nutcracker boy's lounge set 60-RN04 Child's lounge set 63-SN03 Silent Night gown 63-SN13 No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/gBY0Ki The recalled products were manufactured in El Salvador and sold Online at www.eleanorrose.com from November 2014 through February 2016 for about $30. EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: "Cox" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Cox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Expeditors And Production Services Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00154-LF-KBM (D.N.M., March 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, NMSA Section 50-4-19 et seq. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing. EPS is an oil and gas service company providing flowback, well testing, gate guard, and other oilfield related services to clients throughout the United States. To provide these services, EPS employs numerous oilfield employees who set up, operate, and break down EPS's equipment in the oilfield. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin R. Kaufman, Esq. Rosalind B. Bienvenu, Esq. HEARD ROBINS CLOUD, LLP 505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Tel: (505) 986-0600 Fax: (505) 986-0632 Email: jkaufman@heardrobins.com rbienvenu@heardrobins.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, Texas 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 Email: mjosephson@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, Texas 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: A Third Look at the Implicit Guaranteee ----------------------------------------------------------------- We reported in the Tuesday edition of the Class Action Reporter, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred shareholder Joshua J. Angel appeared in In re Third Amendment Litigation, MDL No. 2713 (J.P.M.L.), last week, with a collection of government documents supporting his contention that: (A) the government's implicit guarantee of preferred shares has always been in place; (B) that implicit guarantee did not change when the GSEs were placed into conservatorship; and (C) the guaranty is still in place today. It's important to understand that Mr. Angel does not challenge or contest the imposition of the conservatorship in 2008 nor does he want to unwind the Net Worth Sweep imposed in 2012. The conservatorship and Third Amendment make no difference to Mr. Angel. He wants the government to honor its promises. He wants Fannie and Freddie's directors to do their jobs and fulfill their fiduciary duties to preferred shareholders, and he's preparing to sue them individually if they don't. Today, we step through the documents Mr. Angel's unearthed. Mr. Angel's starting point is a Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Internal Discussion Paper (IFDP 1045) dated Mar. 2012. That paper -- available at http://goo.gl/O26TsE-- explores how hundreds of U.S. banks owned GSE preferred stock and that they were allowed to treat those riskless securities as Tier I capital. Without the government's implicit guarantee of the GSEs' preferred stock, the Tier I classification would be impossible. Mr. Angel then turns to the GSEs' sale of $22 billion of preferred stock within a year of entering conservatorship and a sale of $4.8 billion less than four months prior to entering conservatorship. But for the government's implicit guarantee, the GSEs' ability to sell, at par, twice as much preferred stock as it had outstanding a year earlier would have been impossible. Mr. Angel examines price movements of Fannie Mae's Series T Preferred shares as the housing finance giant marched toward conservatorship. The securities maintained 60% of their value as Treasury Secretary Paulson announced the conservatorship plan -- prices reflecting the government's implicit guarantee of GSE preferred securities. Mr. Angel observes that after Fannie Mae entered conservatorship, it timely made Treasury-directed payments totaling $413 million to certain holders of its preferred shares. This is the "Animal Farm equality, where all preferred shareholders are equal, but some are more equal than others," to which Mr. Angel refers and was mentioned in Tuesday's newsletter. Mr. Angel also points to a Treasury-issued news release -- see https://goo.gl/ZO00N4 -- dated Sept. 11, 2008, that affirmed the implicit guarantee when it said, "[T]he U.S. Government stands behind the preferred stock purchase agreements and will honor its commitments. Contracts are respected in this country as a fundamental part of rule of law." As every corporate restructuring professional knows, the government's warrants for 79.9% of the GSEs' common stock have no value whatsoever unless and until the GSEs honor their obligations to the companies' pre-conservatorship preferred shareholders. No rational person at the U.S. Treasury Department would allow those warrants to expire out of the money when there are a handful of tried and true ways to realize hundreds of millions of dollars of value on their account. Mr. Angel's decades of corporate restructuring experience tell him there's significant economic value in the GSEs' preferred securities and speculative Fifth Amendment taking value in the GSEs' common stock. And Mr. Angel isn't speaking hypothetically or otherwise pontificating. He has his own money invested in Fannie and Freddie's preferred securities and he expects the U.S. government to honor its contractual obligations. On Mar. 1, 2016, Mr. Angel sent letters to each of Fannie and Freddie's directors urging them to "seek and obtain clarification from outside counsel regarding your duties and liabilities . . . and to begin taking steps to behave as an informed, active board." Mr. Angel's received nothing in response -- not even FHFA general counsel's one-page form letter saying HERA prohibits shareholder lawsuits. At http://gselinks.com/pdf/Govt_Perfidy_Angel.pdfis a copy of Mr. Angel's paper entitled "Government Perfidy and Mismanagement of the GSEs in Conservatorship" released in late-Feb. 2016 and provided by Mr. Angel to each current GSE director on Mar. 1. As we said, it is interesting to us that Mr. Angel is the only party focused on the overnment's implicit guarantee of the GSEs' preferred shares. But one of our readers told us we shouldn't be surprised because Mr. Angel is the first corporate restructuring professional to arrive at a courthouse. Mr. Angel is represented by: Hanh V. Huynh, Esq. HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP 2 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 592-1482 E-mail: hhuynh@herrick.com FISKARS BRANDS: Recalls Bypass Lopper Shears Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Fiskars Brands Inc., of Madison, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of about 277,000 Fiskars(R) 32-Inch Bypass Lopper Shears (in addition, 11,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The lopper handles can break when attempting to cut branches, posing a risk of serious injury and laceration. This recall involves Fiskars Titanium Bypass Lopper shears with model number 6954. The lopper shears have 32-inch dark orange steel handles and black rubber grips with a gray strip. Plastic gears connected to the pruning blades allow the consumers to open and close the pruning blades by moving the handles. "FISKARS" is printed on one handle and product identification information, including model number 6954, is printed on a label on the opposite handle above the barcode. The firm has received a total of 33 reports of incidents, of which 10 occurred after the October 2014 recall announcement. The reports include pinched fingers, bruising and injuries to the head and face, some required stitches. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/G1yCQn The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home Depot stores nationwide and online at HomeDepot.com from May 2011 through June 2014 for about $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lopper shears and contact Fiskars to receive a free replacement lopper. FLOWERS FOODS: Recalls Cobblestone Wheat English Muffins -------------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. (NYSE: FLO) is voluntarily recalling Cobblestone Bread Co. Wheat English Muffins with the UPC # 0 72250 01316 1 and best by dates of October 28, 2015 through April 10, 2016 because they contain undeclared milk. People who have allergies to dairy products run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recalled product involves distribution to retail stores in: Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington DC, and West Virginia. The voluntary recall was initiated after Flowers discovered that product containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk. Approximately 10,000 packages of English muffins are involved in the recall. Flowers issued the voluntary recall and is advising its trade customers to withdraw this product from sale. The company is in the process of recovering the product involved and is in contact with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ensure the continued safety of those consumers who may be impacted by this issue. The company has also reported the recall to FARE (Food Allergy Research & Education). Consumers who have purchased Cobblestone Bread Co. Wheat English Muffins with the UPC and dates noted are urged to return to the place of purchase for product replacement or refund. No other Cobblestone Bread Co. brand products are included in this recall. Consumers with questions may call Flowers' Consumer Relations Center at 1-866-245-8921. The center is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Consumers also may contact the center via e-mail by visiting the Contact Us page at http://www.flowersfoods.com. Headquartered in Thomasville, Ga., Flowers Foods, Inc. (NYSE: FLO) is one of the largest producers of fresh packaged bakery foods in the United States, with 2015 sales of $3.8 billion. Flowers operates bakeries across the country that produce a wide range of bakery products. Among the company's top brands are Nature's Own, Wonder, and Tastykake. Learn more at www.flowersfoods.com. FREDERICK J. HANNA: Illegally Collects Debts, "Goodwin" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01071 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Fire Alarm Panel Products ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Gamewell-FCI of Northford, Conn., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Gamewell-FCI fire alarm panels (ILI-MB-E3 and ILI-S- E3). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. When configured in a certain way, the panels can become non- responsive and connected detectors in the area can fail to detect and respond to an alarm. This recall is for the ILI-MB-E3 and ILI-S-E3 Gamewell-FCI fire alarm panels in commercial buildings. This issue is limited to a specific configuration of Signaling Line Circuit (SLC) devices. To occur, the SLC must include at least two of the following detectors in any combination: Acclimate, 4-Warn, Photo/CO and iFAAST. The issue would occur only if the detectors are addressed within the same FlashScan polling group. Detectors installed in a different combination are not affected. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/gxhh2q The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at Authorized distributors from May 2015 through August 2015 for about $800. Consumers should immediately contact the distributor to obtain the free repair, a firmware upgrade. GARDEN FRESH: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Ariell Johnson, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp.dba Souplantation and Sweet Tomatoes, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv- 00845 (S.D. Tex., March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp., dba Souplantation, owns various restaurants. 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) 788-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com GARMIN INT'L: Wins Class Action Over Personal Navigation Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Garmin International Inc., a subsidiary of Garmin Ltd., on April 4 disclosed that it prevailed on summary judgment in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Meyers v. Garmin International, Inc. Case No. 13-CV-2416. The plaintiff alleged that the lithium ion batteries in certain Garmin personal navigation devices were prone to fail prematurely. The court granted summary judgment to Garmin on all remaining asserted claims after the plaintiff abandoned most of his claims. The court found that the undisputed evidence showed that, even after four years of use, the battery in plaintiff's device had not reached the end of its useful life. The judgment is subject to appeal. "Garmin is very pleased with the court's dismissal of this purported class action lawsuit. Many people don't understand that class action litigation often provides disproportionate financial benefits to the plaintiffs' attorneys who file these cases, often without a reasonable analysis of the merits of the case," said Andrew Etkind, Garmin's vice president and general counsel. "This ruling demonstrates the steadfast determination by Garmin to fight any and all baseless claims." Garmin is a pioneer in GPS navigation and wireless devices and applications that are designed for people who live an active lifestyle. Garmin serves five primary business units, including automotive, aviation, fitness, marine, and outdoor recreation. About Garmin Garmin International Inc. is a subsidiary of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN). Garmin Ltd. is incorporated in Switzerland, and its principal subsidiaries are located in the United States, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Garmin is a registered trademark of Garmin Ltd. GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Everett Suit Transferred to New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- City of Everett, Plaintiff, v. General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and Frank A. Reichl, and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01198 (W.D. Wash., February 5, 2016), seeks treble damages, costs of suit, and other relief as maybe determined appropriate, on behalf of a Class of persons and entities who purchased liquid aluminum sulfate pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. On March 3, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:16-cv-01198-JLL- JAD, and assigned to Judge Jose L. Linares and referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson. General Chemical Corporation, nka General Chemical USA, operates over 40 facilities across the United States, which sell products for a wide range of uses, including municipal water treatment, general industrial production, pulp and paper, food and beverage, agriculture and pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Mark A. Griffin, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Raymond J. Farrow, Esq. Daniel P. Mensher, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Fax (206) 623-3384 Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com dmensher@kellerrohrback.com GIVENCHY: Recalls Men's Silk T-shirts Due to Burn Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Givenchy, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 60 Givenchy men's silk T-shirts. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The T-shirts fail to meet the federal flammability standard for wearing apparel and pose a run of burn injury to consumers. This recall involves three styles of Givenchy-branded 100% silk T- shirts for men. The short-sleeve T-shirts are sheer and were sold in blue and black plaid, black and white stripes and black with an image of Jesus on the cross. They were sold in sizes XXS through L. The style number 16J7127135, 16J6218886 or 16J7205877 is printed on a tag sewn into the side seam. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/DIU4Th The recalled products were manufactured in Portugal and Tunisia and sold at Barneys New York, Givenchy Boutiques, Maxfield and Forward, Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom stores nationwide from February 2016 through March 2016 for between $685 and $1,350. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled T-shirts and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Givenchy is directly contacting consumers who bought the recalled T-shirts. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Thatcher" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2657 ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Glaxosmithkline LLC. The case is captioned Kristin Thatcher and Paul Thatcher, both individually and on Behalf of C.T., their minor child, the Plaintiffs, v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10639-FDS (D. Mass., April 1, 2016). The Plaintiffs seek to recover for compensatory and punitive damages, and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to C.T. as a result of his prenatal exposures to the Zofran, also known as ondansetron. Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in cancer patients. GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use. The Thatcher case is being consolidated with MDL 2657 in re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on November 13, 2015. It consists of factual questions arising from allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant. In its November 13, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Massachusetts 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. F. Dennis Saylor IV, United States District Judge. The lead case is Lead case: 1:15-md-02657-FDS. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert K. Jenner Brian D. Ketterer Kimberly A. Dougherty JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653 3200 Facsimile: (410) 653 9030 E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com GROSFILLEX INC: Recalls Side Chairs and Armless Bar Stools ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Grosfillex Inc., of Robesonia, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 92,000 Havana side chairs and armless bar stools. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The backrest can crack and detach, posing a fall hazard to the user. This recall involves the Grosfillex Havana commercial side chairs and armless bar stools. They were sold in charcoal, espresso, tobacco and white. The high-backs and seats are covered with woven plastic wicker and have aluminum legs. The side chairs measure about 35 1/2 inches tall by 18 1/2 inches wide and 22 inches deep. The bar stools measure about 45 1/2 inches tall by 20 inches wide by 24 inches deep. Grosfillex and CE # 2194 is molded on the underside of the seat. The firm has received three reports of incidents, including neck and shoulder injuries. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/E6acmD The recalled products were manufactured in France and United States and sold at Distributors and dealers nationwide in the food service and hospitality industries from April 2008 through August 2015 for between $75 and $150. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and stools and contact Grosfillex for free replacements if the product is under the three-year warranty or for a product voucher for recalled products no longer under warranty. GRUBHUB INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grubhub Inc. (Ill. Cir. Ct., March 31, 20160), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unauthorized text message calls to consumers' cellular telephones advertising its restaurant partners. Grubhub Inc. operates an online platform that allows consumers to order food from more than 40,000 restaurants in more than 1,000 cities throughout the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Courtney C. Booth, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com cbooth@edelson.com GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Defends Products Amid Wen Hair Loss Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charissa Echavez, writing for HealthAim, reports that celebrity hair brand Wen is under fire for allegedly causing hair loss among its users that persist even after discontinuation of use of its famous hair care products. The brand is popularized by its celebrity brand endorsers and its creator, celebrity stylist Chaz Dean and Guthy-Renker LLC of the Proactiv fame. The complaints, including a class-action lawsuit from California in 2014, have now involved about 200 consumers from 40 states around U.S. against the renowned million dollar brand, ranging from scalp irritation and irreparable damage to gradual hair loss. The lawsuit filed through Christiansen Davis' law firm stated that the product's "active ingredients act as a depilatory and caustic agent, either by causing a chemical reaction that damages the hair strand and/or follicle." Surprisingly, this fact was allegedly also known by the manufacturer but has failed to do any actions including the removal of such harmful chemical. Though it failed to specify which product was the alleged cause of the hair loss, the brand stated that their product works as an all purpose hair product, including a shampoo, conditioner and even detangler, urging consumers to use it in generous amounts every day. Complaints started when consumers noticed irritation to the products resulting in alarming hair loss, in which one consumer lost about a third of her hair, according to a class action lawsuit in July 2014 that announced in August that same year. However, the issue has only gained popularity in social media in February 2015 when a blog post was mistook as a news article and has been circulated by various accounts of hair styling pages and salons in Facebook and Twitter. "There is no scientific evidence to support any claim that our hair care products caused anyone to lose their hair. There are many reasons why individuals may lose their hair, all unrelated to Wen hair products," Chaz Dean and the products parent company Guthy-Renker LLC told NBC News. "We intend to vigorously contest the allegations made against our products. And we encourage any customer with any questions to contact us." In the press statement Dean stated that there are still a lot of consumers who continue to use their product and have expressed their support. HONDA NORTH AMERICA: Removes "Henriksen" Action to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Honda North America, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, removed the state court action captioned Brooke Angel Henriksen and Maria McArdle, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Honda North America, Inc., a corporation; Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc., a corporation; Honda Trading Corp.; a corporation; Continental Automotive Systems, a corporation; Continental AG, a corporation; and Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc., in the Circuit Court in and for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 502016CA000333XXXXMB, to the District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1441(b), 1446, and 1453, and assigned Case No. 9:16-cv- 80319-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 3, 2016). The case is assigned to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald R. Fountain , Jr., Esq. CLARK, FOUNTAIN, LA VISTA, PRATHER, KEEN & LITTKY-RUBIN, LLP 1919 No. Flagler Drive, Suite 200 West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Tel: (561) 899-2100 Fax: (561) 832-3580 Email: dfountain@clarkfountain.com - and - Geoffrey S Stahl, Esq. LIGGIO BENRUBI, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 3B West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 616-3333 Email: gstahl@liggiolaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Liggio, Esq. LIGGIO BENRUBI 1615 Forum Place, Suite 3-B West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2737 Tel: (561) 616-3333 Fax: (561) 616-3266 Email: jliggio@liggiolaw.com - and- Poorad Razavi, Esq. RUDD & DIAMOND PA 150 W Flagler Street, Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (561) 899-2133 Fax: (561) 832-3580 Email: prazavi@rudddiamond.com Defendant, Honda North America, Inc., is represented by: Iain Leslie Cooper Kennedy, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Miami Center, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-5171 Fax: (305) 358-7470 Email: ikennedy@shb.com INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR: Answer in "Callahan" Case Due July 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendants have until July 1, 2016, to file an answer in the case, Frank Callahan, on behalf of Himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Infrastructure Repair Technologies Inc., and Jeff Ewing, Defendants, Case No. 1684CV00706, (Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, March 3, 2016). Final Pre-Trial Conference is set for June 26, 2017; and judgment is due March 5, 2018. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael C. Forrest, Esq. Matthew Thomas LaMothe, Esq. Brian McNiff, Esq. Paul Francis Xavier Yasi, Esq. The Defendants are represented by: William McClare Dunham, Esq. Richard D. Glovsky, Esq. NATHANAEL JACKSON COCHRANE NICHOLS 111 Huntington Ave Boston, MA 02199-7610 Tel: (617) 239-0820 INVISIBLU INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme ---------------------------------------------------------- Invisiblu International LLC is voluntarily recalling one lot of Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme, 3 mg to the retail and consumer level. The product has been found to contain LGD-4033 Ligandrol. Risk Statement: The risks of using this product are unknown. Invisiblu International has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall. LGD-Xtreme is marketed as a dietary supplement to promote gains of lean muscle mass. The product is packaged in a dark amber plastic bottle with ninety capsules. The affected LGD-Xtreme lot numbers are 21511166 with expiration dates of 11/2018.The product can be identified by its black label with gold trim and the Continuum Labs logo. LGD-Xtreme was sold to select end consumers in the United States via the Internet, and was exported to wholesalers in Brazil. Invisiblu International LLC is notifying its distributors and customers by this press release and e-mail, and is asking anyone in possessing of this product to stop using and discard any unused capsules. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Invisiblu International LLC by calling (954) 233-2673, extension 1, Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM EDT, or by sending an e-mail to: inquiry@continuum.com. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Online:www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm1 Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500 available at: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm. Mail to address on the pre-addressed form. Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ATdJ6a JACKPOT JOANIES: Violated FLSA, "Littlefield" Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- Heather Littlefield, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Jackpot Joanies T.J., LLC; Jackpot Joanies C.R., LLC; Jackpot Joanies E.H., LLC; Jackpot Joanies, FP, LLC; Eclipse Gaming SHMP, LLC; and Mar-Lar- Char, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00471 (D. Nev., March, 3, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the Nevada Constitution, Article 15, Section 16. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action. Jackpot Joanies T.J., LLC is a casino operator in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Bourassa, Esq. Trent L. Richards, Esq. THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP 8668 Spring Mountain Road, Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Tel: (702) 851-2180 Fax: (702) 851-2189 Email: mbourassa@bourassalawgroup.com trichards@bourassalawgroup.com JANSSEN INC: Invokana Safe for Diabetes Patients, Doctor Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that when a woman from Ontario, Canada, launched her blockbuster $1 billion Invokana side effects lawsuit last September, a diabetes specialist based in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, weighed in, suggesting that in her view Invokana represents no threat to the kidneys of patients suffering from type 2 diabetes. "We know that even if you use it in people with reduced kidney function, it does no further harm to the kidneys," said Dr. Debbie Knight, in comments published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC 9/17/15). "I think it's safe, yes. If I didn't think it was safe, I don't think I'd use [Invokana] in any of my patients." Dr. Knight should know, having spent 35 years in the treatment of diabetes. The CBC noted that Knight also works as a consultant for Janssen, the pharmaceutical giant that manufactures Invokana and one of the defendants in the Ontario lawsuit. The CBC report did not detail any further specifics of Knight's relationship with the Invokana manufacturer. However, the plaintiff in the proposed class action in Canada believes headlines that suggest "Invokana Linked with Cardiovascular Injuries and Kidney Failure," have merit. Rosalba Joudry should know: within several months of beginning treatment with Invokana to rein in her blood sugar levels, Ms. Joudry underwent tests that suggested the early stages of kidney failure. Needless to say, Ms. Joudry takes no comfort in the words of Dr. Knight. Ms. Joudry, having launched her Invokana side effects lawsuit in September of last year, is seeking general damages in excess of $500 million, together with special damages also in excess of $500 million. The Canadian lawsuit -- which is mirrored by several similar lawsuits in both Canada and the United States -- comes at an inopportune time for the pharmacare program of Nova Scotia, one of Canada's eastern provinces. Nova Scotia recently included Invokana in its pharmacare formulary on the first of September last year, following similar moves by Quebec and Ontario. Ms. Joudry, who hails from the Ontario suburb of Scarborough, claims to have had no knowledge of the potential for Invokana side effects relating to kidneys and ketoacidosis when she was prescribed the drug. According to the CBC, her first exposure to suggestions that Invokana could be harmful came from a television ad trolling for plaintiffs on a US TV station. Ms. Joudry looked into the matter further, and after her doctor took Ms. Joudry off the medication, underwent tests. Results suggested that Ms. Joudry was in the early stages of kidney failure. US-based lawsuits are alleging similar injuries. In May of last year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its warning that SGLT2 inhibitors, such as Invokana (canagliflozin), may increase a patient's risk of ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition related to high acidity in the blood. The next month, the Canadian health regulatory authority (and a counterpart to the FDA), Health Canada, launched a safety review of SGLT2 inhibitors with regard to diabetic ketoacidosis. Jennifer McCormack, spokeswoman for Janssen Inc., said in an e-mail to the CBC, "We continue to work with Health Canada in their class assessment of the potential risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) with SGLT2 inhibitor use. "Invokana (canagliflozin) provides important benefits to patients with Type 2 diabetes and we remain confident in the overall safety profile of Invokana," she said. The lawsuit is Rosalba Joudry v. Janssen Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Ortho LLC, Johnson & Johnson, and Johnson & Johnson Inc., Case No. W-15-536111, filed September 10, 2015 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. KRAFT HEINZ: Violated UCL & CLRA, "Weiss" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Adam Weiss and Patty Morelos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The Kraft Heinz Company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00605 (C.D. Cal., Southern Div., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover damages due to Defendant's misbranding and false advertising of its "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese", pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business & Professions Code, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Defendant's label and advertisements alledgedly claimed the Product's grated cheese is "100%" parmesan cheese. Defendant's claims, however, are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public because the Product is not 100% cheese. Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes the Product. Through an extensive, integrated, and widespread nationwide marketing campaign, Defendant promises that the Product is 100% parmesan cheese. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. Camille S. Bass, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1100 Facsimile: (619) 338 1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com cbass@bholaw.com - and - David Markham, Esq. Peggy Reali, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 399 3995 Facsimile: (619) 615 2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com preali@markham-law.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 E-mail: walter@whaines.com LARRY STIGERS EQUIPMENT: "Grimes" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Grimes, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Larry Stigers Equipment, Trailers & Trucks, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00025-GFVT (March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant sells trucks, trailers and associated equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Tel: (407) 420-1414 Email: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com LEE SEED: Recalls Yogurt Super Soynuts Products Due to Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Lee Seed Company, Inc. of Inwood, Iowa is recalling Yogurt Super Soynuts because the product contains undeclared milk. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Yogurt Super Soynuts were packaged in clear plastic 16 oz. bags. Yogurt Super Soynuts were also included in seven-inch, four- section holiday tins (decorated with a golden swirl design or a horse & sleigh image). The product was sold on-line via the company's website, www.soynuts.com, and distributed nationwide by mail order. All Yogurt Super Soynuts shipped from November 2013 through March 2016 is impacted. To date, there have been no reports of illnesses in connection with use of this product. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the product label on the dairy-containing product did not reveal the presence of milk. This voluntary recall has been issued by Lee Seed Company, Inc. to ensure the safety of customers. Consumers affected by this recall of Yogurt Super Soynuts should contact the company for a full refund at 1-800-736-6530 Monday through Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM, Central Daylight Savings Time (CDT). Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ecoLHW LIFE PARTNERS: "Steuben" Suit Removed to Calif. Bankruptcy Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Steuben, On behalf of herself and other California citizens similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Life Partners, Inc., and United States Trustee (LA), Defendants, has been removed on March 3, 2016, from state court to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California and assigned Adv. Proc. No. 2:16-ap-01109-ER (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2016), before Bankruptcy Judge Ernest M. Robles. On November 8, 2011, a putative class action suit was filed, styled Marilyn Steuben, on behalf of herself and all other California citizens similarly situated v. Life Partners, Inc., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Court, Case No. BC472953. This suit asserts claims of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violations of California's Unfair Competition law based upon the alleged overpayment of premiums to the insurance company, that is, the alleged failure to engage in "premium optimization." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Miller, Esq. 6363 N Highway 161 Ste 450 Irving, TX 75038 - and - James Orr, Esq. 6363 N. Highway 161 Ste 450 Irving, TX 75038 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Skehan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Skehan & Jeffery Lee Larkins v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02780-AJT-TRJ (E.D. Lo., March 1, 2016), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The Defendants are retailers of hardwood flooring in the United States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual revenues of more than one billion dollars. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russ M. Herman, Esq. Leonard A. Davis, Esq. Stephen J. Herman, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Ave. New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com ldavis@hhklawfirm.com sherman@hhklawfirm.com M.L. ZAGER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Griffin" Complaint Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Doris Griffin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M.L. Zager, P.C., and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01234-ES-MAH (D.N.J., March 3, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Judge Esther Salas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glen H. Chulsky, Esq. 375 Passaic Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Email: g.chulsky@att.net - and - Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Tel: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com MANHATTAN TOY: Recalls Table Top Toys Due to Chocking Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Manhattan Toy Company, of Minneapolis, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,100 Busy Loops table top toys (in addition, 448 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The round plastic beads can break, posing a choking hazard. Busy Loops table top toys have orange, green, blue and purple plastic tubing with plastic beads threaded on the tubing that can slide up and down. The tubes sit on a blue plastic base with an orange plastic suction cup. The toy is about 4.5" W x 4.5" L x 7" H. The model number 700470 and lot code FH are printed on the bottom of the blue base. The firm has received two reports of beads breaking off the toy. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/7tb2QW The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at BuyBuy Baby and other toy stores nationwide, and online at Amazon.com and Kohls.com from September 2015 through January 2016 for about $15. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toy and return it to the store where it was purchased or contact Manhattan Toy for a full refund. MERCY HEALTH: Retirement Plan Underfunded, "Lupp" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- David Lupp, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mercy Health, The Mercy Health Partners Retirement Plan Committee and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00441-SJD (S.D. Ohio, March 30, 2016), contends that as of December 31, 2014, the Mercy Health Partners Retirement Plan was underfunded by $209.761 million. Defendants purport to justify the severe underfunding on the grounds that the Plan is a "Non-ERISA Church Plan" and therefore is exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, et seq. To the contrary, the Plan does not meet ERISA's requirements for the "church plan" exemption, because it was not "established," and is not "maintained" by a church. Rather, the Plan was established and is maintained by Mercy Health, which is a large healthcare company -- not a church or a convention or association of churches. As a result of its spurious claim that it is a church, the Company avoids its statutory retirement plan funding obligations to employees and thereby obtains a competitive advantage over other healthcare providers who meet their financial obligations to their employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald R. Parry, Esq. Robert R. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA The Federal Reserve Building 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Tel: (513) 621-2120 Fax: (513) 241-8259 Email: rrparry@strausstroy.com rrsparks@strausstroy.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Email: eciolko@ktmc.com dmoffa@ktmc.com mgyandoh@ktmc.com jsjohnson@ktmc.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P.Kindall, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 South Main Street Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel: (860) 493-6292 Fax: (860) 493-6290 Email: rizard@izardnobel.com mkindall@izardnobel.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gabay" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Shelly Gabay, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01219-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., March 3, 2016), alleges violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices. The case is assigned to Judge Madeline C. Arleo. Midland is a business that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another. Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, New Jersey 07004 Tel: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com - and - Glen Chulsky, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Tel: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 - and - Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. Attorney at Law 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Tel: (201) 507-6300 Fax: (201) 507-6311 MONTEREY COLLECTION: "Laughner" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Jackalynn L. Craven Laughner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Monterey Collection Services aka Monterey Financial Services, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00361 (D. Conn., Mar 3, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Tel: (347) 526-4093 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Tel: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com MOUNTAIN VIEW MEDICAL: Violated FLSA, "Vanauken" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Dianna Vanauken, Matt Smith, and Nicalene Dooley, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mountain View Medical Group, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-00766 (D. Col., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Mountain View Medical Group is a Colorado professional corporation that provides health care services at different facilities throughout the Pikes Peak region. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian D. Kalmanowitz, Esq. CORNISH & DELL'OLIO, P.C. 431 N. Cascade Ave. Suite 1 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: 719 475 1204 Facsimile: 719-475-1264 E-mail: ikalmanowitz@cornishanddellolio.com NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussions Research "Flawed, Incomplete" --------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Young, writing for Dallas Observer, reports that on April 1, The New York Times, hit the NFL hard, reporting that the NFL's research into player concussions was "was deeply flawed and incomplete" and that the league hired attorneys and other personnel affiliated with the tobacco industry to help oversee that research. The implication made by the Times was clear, the NFL, in attempting to keep its product palatable to fans, had used similar tactics to those used by the tobacco industry to keep its product palatable to smokers. The NFL -- which gingerly admitted in March that playing football may lead to brain damage -- demanded a retraction from the Times, which turned the league down flat. Whatever the league says notwithstanding, it is clear from research into football injuries and the number of former players who suffer from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the degenerative brain condition commonly know as CTE, that something has to be done, especially at the youth and high school levels, to reduce instances of repeated blows to players' heads without proper protection. On April 1, as part of a Texas Lyceum conference on the business of football in the 21st century in Fort Worth, researchers deeply involved in the crisis discussed what changes the game must make to remain viable. "We've been wanting people to say 'a concussion is a brain injury, it's not that you rang your bell, it's something to be taken seriously.' I'm so excited now that we're finally recognizing that it is a brain injury," said Sandra Bond Chapman, the founder and chief director of the Center for Brain Health at the University of Texas at Dallas. Ms. Chapman and researchers at the Center for Brain Health were among the first to study the lasting effects of concussions on youths, monitoring some kids who'd picked up concussions over a period of 25 years for lasting symptoms. Somewhat surprisingly, despite what she's found and witnessed, Ms. Chapman said on April 1 that she was not for keeping younger players away from the game. "When people hear what I do, they say, 'You, you've, been saying concussions are brain injuries, you must be against young people playing.' I say, 'Well, if we take football away then we'll have concussions from jumping on cars or rollerblading," she said. Kids are going to do risky things, she said, so a better solution is changing the game in fundamental ways -- like creating safer artificial turf, mandating increased safety equipment and changing football's most dangerous play, the kickoff -- to make it safer and following up concussions just as one would with other injuries, like a broken arm. One of the companies attempting to promote player safety -- and catch the crest was what's sure to be a pretty big wave of business -- is VICIS. VICIS specializes in designing impact- reduction football helmets, decreasing to the chance for a shock injury to the brain. "[Today's standard football helmets] are designed mainly to prevent skull fractures and they do a pretty good job of that," Clark Hood, vice president of VICIS southwest division said. "It's a two-layer system. You've got the outer shell and the padding inside. Those helmets were not designed to reduce the acceleration and the forces that can occur during impact." VICIS' helmets have four layers. Basically, the company adds to layers on top of what would've been the outer shell on a traditional helmet. Those aren't rigid and reduce acceleration at impact, much like the crumple zone on a car. Mr. Hood admitted that his company's helmets couldn't stop concussions, but Mathew Matheny, the Beaumont-based lead plaintiff's counsel a class-action concussion lawsuit against, says even a helmet which can lessen the effect of hits that don't generate concussions is important. "Concussion has become a buzzword. Just because someone doesn't sustain a technical concussion does not mean that they haven't put themselves in place where they could be sustaining long-term brain damage," Mr. Matheny said. "If we can develop technology that's even going to lessen the impact of a sub-concussive blow, we're going to make giant strides in preventing long-term brain damage, which was really the thrust of what our litigation was about. That's CTE, the big buzzword you hear from the NFL now." Mr. Matheny helped his class of former NFL player clients get a nearly $1 billion settlement from the league in April 2015. Under the settlement, the league didn't admit anything, but Mr. Matheny says his clients' case at least started the conversation that's continued since the lawsuit was settled. "The first player to hire me was [former Cowboys great] Lee Roy Jordan. He said, 'I want to know if I have brain damage, and I want to know if something can be done so that my grandchild doesn't have to be concerned that they have brain damage.' That's been the motivation of the people we've represented." NATIONWIDE CREDIT INC: Faces "Marinacci" Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is captioned Brenda Marinacci, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01610 (E.D.N.Y., Central Islip, April 1, 2016). Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services. The company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted accounts. Its customer relationship management services include inbound/outbound customer care and back office services; and accounts receivable management services comprise pre charge-off collections, post charge-off recoveries, charge-off mortgage collections, and an attorney network. Nationwide Credit serves customers in automotive, banking and credit card, healthcare, insurance, mortgage, retail, telecommunication, and utilities industries worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com NEKASA INC: "Sevilla" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Berenice Diego Sevilla, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nekasa Inc. (d/b/a AAA Laundromat), 5-126 Laundromat Inc. (d/b/a NYC Laundromat), 123 Laundromat Corp. (d/b/a 123 Laundromat), Royal Impex Inc. (d/b/a A 1 Laundromat), Imran Farooq, Neil Kapre, Anibal Hernandez and Miguel Santana, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02368 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 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. The Defendants own, operate and/or control a chain of laundromats. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATE, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com NEW KO-SUSHI JAPANESE: Faces "Portillo" Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against New Ko-Sushi Japanese Restaurant, Inc. The case is captioned Miguel Cisneros Portillo, Cesar Tenorio, Eugenio Ortega Vasquez, Gilberto Huelitl, Gilmar Sontay Tzun, Jose Portillo Robles, Enrique Moran Perez also known as Freddy, and Andres Reyes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. New Ko-Sushi Japanese Restaurant, Inc., doing business as: Ko Sushi Japanese Restaurant, New Ko Sushi II Japanese Restaurant Inc., doing business as: Ko Sushi Japanese Restaurant, Hui Chen, Meiyu Chen, Jim Cai Wang, also known as Tommy, and Mai Jiang Zhu, also known as Jimmy Chen, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02429 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, April 1, 2016). New Ko-Sushi Japanese Restaurant offers standard Japanese menu with lunch specials. The Restaurant is located in New York, New York. Plaintiff Gilmar Sontay Tzun appears pro se. NEW TECH GLOBAL VENTURES: Faces "Clay" Wage & Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Michael D. Clay, Larre G. Butler, and Clayton Shamsie individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Tech Global Ventures, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00296 (W.D. La., March 3, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. New Tech Global Ventures, LLC provides workers and their services to major energy companies including the following nonexclusive services: Engineering, environmental, mudtech, directional, NTG- RHS LATAM, midstream, safety and staffing services. Defendant maintains locations throughout Louisiana, Texas and Gulf of Mexico as well as Colorado and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq. 311 West University Avenue, Suite A Lafayette, LA 70506 Tel: (337) 534-4043 NG & LIN CO: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Sir" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Alvaro Yovani Bellon Sir and Pablo Bellon Micar, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Ng & Lin Co, Inc. (d/b/a Szechuan Kitchen), Sammy Lin and Chung Ng, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02424 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the N.Y. Labor Law (NYLL) Defendants own, operate, or control a Chinese restaurant located at 1518 First Avenue No. 1, New York, NY 10075 under the name Szechuan Kitchen. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 NORTHEASTERN ASSET RECOVERY: Violated FDCPA, "Evensen" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemary Evensen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Northeastern Asset Recovery, Inc., JTM Capital Management, LLC, Claire Higgins, and Steve Larkin, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01070 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com - and - David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com OCEAN PROPERTIES: Faces "Bouton" Suit in S.D. Florida Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Ocean Properties, Ltd. The case is captioned Justin Bouton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocean Properties, Ltd., a foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80502-BB (S.D. Fla., West Palm Beach, April 1, 2016). Ocean Properties provides hotel services. The Company offers short term room rental, spa, restaurant, gym, and shopping center. Ocean Properties serves customers throughout the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454 5841 Facsimile: (954) 454 5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589 0588 Facsimile: (954) 337 0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Purnel" Suit in S.D. Mississippi --------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. The case is captioned Leroy Purnell and Brenda Purnell, individuals and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00234-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., Northern Jackson April 1, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge is Hon. Daniel P. Jordan, III. Ocwen Loan Servicing offers and services residential mortgage loans. Its loan servicing includes customer service, collections, investor accounting, escrow, loss mitigation, foreclosure, and property disposition. The company services mortgage backed securitized and unsecuritized loans and securities. The company was founded in 1989 and is based in West Palm Beach, Florida. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corp. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. OMNINET VILLAGE: Faces "Stallworth" Suit Over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donell Stallworth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omninet Village, L.P. d/b/a Village Lakes Apartments, Omninet Village Lake, LLC, Omninet Property Management, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Properties, Case No. 6:16-cv-00546- GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla., March 31, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged breach of contract. The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in Orlando, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Coleman Washington Watson, Esq. WATSON LLP 121 S. Orange Ave Ste. 1500 Orlando, FL 32801-3586 Telephone: (407) 377-6634 Facsimile: (407) 377-6688 E-mail: coleman@watsonllp.com PALOS VERDES, CA: More People Want to Join Lunada Bay Boys Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Walkter, writing for Independent.co.uk, reports that Lunada Bay, an out-of-the-way cove on the Palos Verdes peninsula south of Los Angeles, is one of the best big-wave surfing spots in California. In the shelter of its steep, semi-circular cliffs are a pristine beach and the promise of 20-foot winter swells. And, unlike so many other prime breaks on the US west coast, its waves are miraculously uncrowded. That's because anyone who wants to surf there must first get past the Lunada Bay Boys, an infamous local surfing clique known routinely to chase off outsiders with threats, harassment and, in some cases, violence. At the top of the dirt path that leads down to the beach, the Bay Boys once posted a sign that warned: "Unlocals will be hassled." Last week, though, it is the Bay Boys who are under threat, after they were targeted by "unlocal" surfers with a class-action lawsuit, which seeks to classify the group as a criminal street gang. If successful, the suit would see the Bay Boys banned from gathering at their coveted surf spot, and ordered to pay fines and compensation to the plaintiffs. Unwanted visitors to Lunada Bay claim to have been pelted with rocks and had their tires slashed. According to the lawsuit, the gang's members "dangerously disregard surfing rules when it comes to visitors . . . run over visitors with their surfboards, push visitors, hit visitors, slap visitors, harass visitors by circling them, and hold visitors underwater." Contrary to the image of a typical LA gang, the Bay Boys are largely white and affluent, like their Lunada Bay neighbours. Among the 100 or more members of the group are firemen and school- teachers, said Vic Otten, the lawyer who filed the suit. "What's really shocking," he added, "is that in many cases these are men in their 50s and 60s." Among the plaintiffs in the case are a police officer from nearby El Segundo, who says he was hassled by the Bay Boys while trying to surf at Lunada Bay last year, and Diana Reed, a filmmaker who claims to have been sexually harassed while visiting the beach in January. The gang members are "certainly obnoxious," said Mr. Otten, "but some are also dangerous." One Bay Boy "shook up a can of beer and sprayed Reed and her camera with it, and poured beer on Reed's arm," the lawsuit alleges. "They told her they thought she was 'sexy,' and filmed her while they told her she 'excited them'. . .[A Bay Boy] briefly exposed himself to Reed while he was changing into his wetsuit." Since local media first reported the lawsuit, Mr. Otten said he had received more than a dozen calls per day from other potential plaintiffs. "These are people who've been harassed over the course of 20 years," he said. "They're upstanding citizens who are angry and who want to join the lawsuit." In fact, the allegations of intimidation stretch back several decades. Local activist Geoff Hagins, now 60, said he was first attacked by locals at Lunada Bay in 1969, when he was a teenager. "I went there to surf and got caught on the side of the cliff for 20 minutes while they threw rocks the size of softballs at me," he said. In 1995, when his 10-year-old nephew was threatened by the Bay Boys, Mr. Hagins went to Lunada Bay with a local news crew, causing an altercation that was caught on camera. He won a $15,000 out-of-court settlement from one of the gang members and a restraining order that banned the group from threatening outsiders. Clearly, it didn't last. Surf culture may have a reputation for being mellow, but it also contains a strain of aggressive, so-called "localism": surfers often protect their native breaks from interlopers to prevent them becoming overcrowded. Another notorious group, the Silver Strand Locals, are known to patrol their beach in Oxnard, 70 miles up the coast from Palos Verdes. The Oxnard punk band Aggression encapsulated the Silver Strand Locals' mindset with its 2003 track "Locals Only", which features lyrics such as: "Going into my waters and what do I see / Out-of- town goons in front of me / All I wanna know is what they're doing on my waves / Gonna have to show them how we behave." The Bay Boys rule their fiefdom from an open-air clubhouse on the rocks above the beach, a stone and wood structure built, needless to say, without official permits. From this stronghold, they reportedly drink and hurl abuse at visitors or each other. "Most of them aren't even good surfers," Mr. Hagins said. "They spend most of their time drinking." Recently, the California Coastal Commission demanded local officials crack down on the gang for restricting access to what is supposedly a public beach, and urged them to either approve the clubhouse as a public space, or tear it down. The Palos Verdes authorities have been accused of spinelessness and even complicity in their attitude to the Bay Boys. That is reflected in the lawsuit, which names police chief Jeff Kepley as a defendant, and asks a judge to order police to investigate the gang's alleged crimes. "Palos Verdes Estates has a long history of deliberate indifference in not investigating or otherwise policing acts of violence and vandalism against visiting beachgoers," the suit claims. After he took charge of the Palos Verdes Estates police department last year, Chief Kepley promised to step up patrols at Lunada Bay. But in an interview with radio station KPCC, he said the Bay Boys' activities were simply not violent enough to prosecute. "There's not shooting and stabbings and things that you typically associate with street gangs," he said. One unnamed Bay Boy addressed the lawsuit, in an interview with the surfing website Surfline.com. "If you're down there and we don't know you, then someone or multiple people are going to say something to you and at the very least make your whole session completely miserable," the man said. He added, however, that he was "not aware of anyone being physically assaulted [at Lunada Bay] in years . . . The reason why nobody has been arrested at the bay is because there hasn't been an incident that has warranted an arrest." The lawsuit initially named eight members of the Bay Boys, including four men from two generations of the same family. Mr. Otten said more defendants would soon be added to the suit, but described the eight in question as "the worst of the worst". Several of the men named in the suit reportedly have criminal records. One is linked to the recent violent robbery of a local off- license. Another, 27-year-old Michael Papayans, pleaded not guilty in March to an assault at an LA Dodgers baseball game. His grandmother, Sheila Papayans, told local paper the Daily Breeze that the lawsuit was ridiculous. "Most of these people have been to college. They all have good jobs. [Surfing] is their hobby, just like fishing and swimming," she said . "They are not a gang." Mr. Hagins agreed with her, up to a point. "Most of them are normal citizens with families and wives and respectable businesses," he said. "But at the bay, they turn into bullies and criminals." PJS OF PARMA: Faces "Calta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Calta and Dustin Wylie, Plaintiffs, all others similarly situated v. PJS of Parma, Inc. d/b/a Stancato's Italian Restaurant and Lorraine Stancato, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00779 (N.D. Ohio, March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Complaint asserts that the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were not tipped employees and are entitled to minimum wage. PJS of Parma, Inc. owns and operates the Stancato's Italian Restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen I. Voudris, Esq. Alix Noureddine, Esq. VOUDRIS LAW LLC 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Tel: 440-543-0670 Fax: 440-543-0721 Email: svoudris@voudrislaw.com anoureddine@voudrislaw.com PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Faces "Dillard" Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Dillard, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Platform Specialty Products Corporation, Rakesh Sachdev, Daniel H. Leever, Sanjiv Khattri and Frank J. Monteiro, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80490-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2016), seeks compensatory damages for Defendants' materially false and misleading statement issued during the class period. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Platform securities between February 17, 2015 and March 14, 2016, inclusive. During the Class Period, Defendants materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating the price of Platform's securities, by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statement and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make Defendants' statement, as set forth hereon, not false and/or misleading. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203 Weston, FL 33326 Tel: (954) 315-3454 Fax: (954) 315-3455 Email: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jaliebermann@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste. 1404 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: 800-977-7401 Fax: 800-536-0065 Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Nahari" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Tiran Nahari, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, and Forster, Garbus & Garbus, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01236-WJM- MF (D.N.J., March 3, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Judge William J. Martini. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Tel: (201) 507-6300 Email: lh@hershlegal.com PULASKI COUNTY, AR: Faces Class Action Over Livestock Ban --------------------------------------------------------- Emily Walkenhorst, writing for ArkansasOnline, reports that Pulaski County breached its contracts with several lessees of garden space at Two Rivers Park in Little Rock by deciding earlier this year not to allow people to keep chickens on their garden plots any longer, nine lessees argued in a lawsuit. Chris Attig, Christopher L. Calvert, Jennifer Faulkner, David Fox, Charles Freville, Tim Lincoln, James Newman, Eddie Rodgers and Jennifer Rodgers filed a lawsuit on March 30 seeking class-action status against Pulaski County, County Judge Barry Hyde, County Attorney Adam Fogleman and county staff attorney Will Gruber. Pulaski County revised the terms of its garden leases in February, according to records obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, to include "No animals may be kept by a gardener on any plot. Animals' include, but are not limited to, domestic pets, livestock and wild game." By "unilaterally changing the terms of the 2016 lease as to some (but not all) named Plaintiffs and putative class members, one or more Defendants have breached or caused a breach of a contractual relationship between Pulaski County and names Plaintiffs and the putative class," the lawsuit reads. The lawsuit contends further that the change is a breach of the Arkansas Right to Farm law -- which states that local ordinances that effectively declare an agricultural operation a nuisance are void -- and that the county violated the open-meetings provision of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act when forming the policy. Plaintiffs said that because county officials met to discuss banning livestock at the gardens without notifying the public, the county violated the open-meetings provision. But the lawsuit does not state who was present at those meetings or whether they were members of a governing body. The open-meetings provision says that "all meeting, formal or informal, special or regular, of the governing bodies" of public institutions -- such as quorum courts or city boards -- are open meetings with the exception of executive session for discussion of issues with specific personnel. Pulaski County spokesman Cozetta Jones said no board or other governing body was involved in the decision in Pulaski County, which was not passed in an ordinance. She said the regulatory history of the gardens, which were started in the 1970s, is "really nonexistent" but that Hyde didn't think having chickens on garden plots seemed to fit the gardens' purpose. Ms. Jones said notice was given to people who had chickens on their plots, but she said she didn't know in what way people were notified. "There wasn't a memo that went out," she said. In Little Rock, the Animal Services Advisory board held meetings to discuss restricting the number of chickens people could have on properties smaller than an acre. In March, the board voted to send a set of recommendations -- specifically limiting the number of fowl to 12 -- to the city Board of Directors to consider. In 2015, as in years prior at the Two Rivers Park Garden Center, people were allowed to keep chickens and other animals on their garden plots. Leases for 2015 garden plots ran Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, and leases for 2016 run Jan. 1 of this year through Dec. 31. People can renew their leases as long as fees of $50 per tract are paid by March 1, according to the agreements. Because the decision to not allow animals on the garden plots wasn't made until Feb. 5, anyone who signed a lease or renewed a lease in January or early February signed a contract that did not specifically prohibit keeping animals on their garden plots. Numerous leases for 2016 obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette do not have the provision barring the keeping of animals on garden plots, and numerous others signed later in February had that provision. The lawsuit contends that James Newman, who signed a lease that doesn't include that provision, was sent a letter from Gruber telling him to remove his chickens from his property by the end of March. The complaint further states that not everyone was given notice that they had to remove chickens from their garden plots. Judge Hyde told at least one of the defendants that the garden area was an eyesore and that the "chicken experiment" had failed. QUALITY FOOD: Recalls Cranberry Chicken Salad Due to Pecans ----------------------------------------------------------- QFC said it had recalled its Fresh Food Market Cranberry Chicken Salad that is sold in QFC stores, located in Oregon and Washington. The product may be mislabeled and may contain pecans, wheat, and soy not listed on the label. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pecans, wheat, or soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to pecans, wheat, or soy, there is no safety issue with the product. There have been no illnesses related to recalled product reported to date. QFC has removed this item from store shelves after our employees noticed the scale printing error. QFC initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts customers with QFC Advantage Cards who may have purchased recalled product through register receipt tape messages and phone calls. QFC is recalling the following item: Product UPC Codes Size ------- --- ----- ---- Fresh Food Market 207063-4XXXX Sell By: varies Cranberry Chicken MAR 28, 2016 Salad AND BEFORE Customers can return the product to any QFC store for a full refund or replacement. Customers who have questions may contact QFC at 1-800-576-4377, Monday through Friday, 8am - Midnight, EST and Saturday and Sunday, 8am - 9:30pm EST. Founded in Seattle 60 years ago, QFC is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington and operates 65 stores in Western Washington and in Portland, Oregon. QFC has a long history as a neighborhood grocer, offering the highest quality products, exceptional service, and the finest shopping experience in the market. For more information, please visit our web site at www.qfc.com. RAPID ROD: Violated FLSA, "Salazar" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------- Felipe Salazar, Cody Shautteet, and Santos S. Dominguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rapid Rod Service, LLC, Pelican Rapid Rod Service, LLC, Rapid Rod North Holdings, Inc., Rapid Rod Service, Ltd, and Pelican Rapid Rod Holding Company, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00323 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Div., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages and liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Rapid Rod Service operates as an oilfield service company in Western Canada. The company services wells with conventional and continuous sucker rods. Its equipment includes rod rigs, truck mounted xcelerators, welding, and coiled rods. The company serves senior and junior oil and gas producers. It services wells in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Okotoks, Canada. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip J. Moss, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 8301 Broadway St., Ste. 309 San Antonio, TX 78209 Telephone: (210) 308 6222 Facsimile: (210) 308 6223 E-mail: www.equaljusticecenter.org pmoss@equaljusticecenter.org - and - Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 13590 Ranch Road 12 Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: (512) 782 0567 Facsimile: (512) 782 0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Giorgio" Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Receivables Performance Management, LLC. The case is captioned Stephen Giorgio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01608 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2016). Receivable Performance Management is an accounts receivable management company. The company was incorporated in 2002 and is based in Lynwood, Washington. The Plaintiff appears pros se. ROLAND FOODS: Recalls Roasted Red Pepper Strips Due to Glass ------------------------------------------------------------ Roland Foods, LLC, of New York, NY, in cooperation with the manufacturer in Peru, is initiating a voluntary recall of specific lots of Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips due to the possible presence of glass fragments in the product, therefore posing a potential health hazard. Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips were distributed nationwide and to Canada to food distributors, food service customers, and super market chains for further distribution or use. The following product is subject to the voluntary recall: Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips, NET Wt. 5 LB. 8 OZ. can Item #: 45628 Lot #s: 427, 428, 432, 437 UPC #: 10041224456287 (carton) and 041224456280 (can) Pack Size: 6 x 5 LB. 8 OZ. cans per shipping carton Production Codes (code is ink jet printed on the top of the can): G1 MSS 1 P0929 and G1 MSS 2 P0929 Carton Markings: ITEM 45628 LOT #s: 427, 428, 432, 437 Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips Roland(R) UPC: 10041224456287 No other sizes of Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips or products are affected by the voluntary recall. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after the firm received customer complaints of glass in the product. The recalling firm has notified the manufacturer of the findings in order to conduct an investigation as to what caused the problem. Consumers can visit www.rolandfood.comdisclaimer icon, or contact its Consumer Hotline at 1-800.221.4030 ext. 222, Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm EST, for further information about the voluntary recall and for instructions on obtaining replacement product. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/axvw98 RW BAKERS: Recalls Plain Knot Rolls Due to Peanuts -------------------------------------------------- R.W. Bakers Co. of Muskegon, MI, is recalling its 8 ct. packages of "Meijer Plain Knot Rolls" and 8 ct. packages of "Assorted Dinner Rolls 128 ct." because they may contain trace amounts of undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled "Meijer Knot Rolls" were distributed in Meijer retail stores in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Kentucky and sold between the dates of 3/6/16 and 3/28/16. The "Meijer Plain Knot Rolls" product comes in an 8 ct., clear plastic bag package. The lot number on the master case 16061 with a production date of 3/1/16. The UPC code is 0-41250-09971-0 and is located at the bottom of the package label underneath the bar code. The recalled "Assorted Dinner Rolls 128 ct." were distributed to food service distributors in Michigan and Wisconsin. The "Assorted Dinner Rolls 128 ct." product comes in an 8 ct., clear plastic bag package. The lot number is 16041 with a production date of 2/10/16. This information is found on the master case of the product. No confirmed illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that there could be a potential for cross contamination with peanuts and the packaging statement did not reveal the presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in R.W. Bakers production and packaging processes. Consumers who have purchased 8 ct. packages of "Meijer Knot Rolls" and 8 ct. packages of "Assorted Dinner Rolls 128 ct." are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact R.W. Bakers Co. at 231-799-9360 Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm eastern time. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/dSzT44 SEAVAND CORPORATION: "Martin" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Seavand Corporation and Siamack Assad, individually and as Officer and Director of Seavand Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00119-KGB (E.D. Ark., March 3, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages; prejudgment interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-201, et seq., within the applicable statutory limitations period. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, also seeks punitive damages for Defendants' violations of the AMWA based on the principles found in the Civil Justice Reform Act, Ark. Code Ann. Section 16-55-206. The case is assigned to Judge Kristine G. Baker. The Defendants operated at least three Great American Cookies franchise locations in Arkansas, including locations at the Park Plaza Mall in Little Rock, McCain Mall in North Little Rock, and a location at 605 Salem Building B, Suite 1, Conway, Arkansas, within the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua West, Esq. Josh Sandford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: west@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Lee" Class Action in N.D. Ga. ------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. The case is captioned Daniel Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01080-CC-WEJ (N.D. Ga., Atlanta, April 1, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge is Hon. Clarence Cooper. Select Portfolio Servicing operates a mortgage servicing company in the United States. The company specializes in the servicing of single-family residential mortgage loans. It manages the day-to- day administration of mortgage accounts; and offers assistance programs, including home retention and home non-retention options for homeowners. The company also provides home ownership assistance for active service members and veterans of the United States military. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. was formerly known as Fairbanks Capital Corp. and changed its name to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. in July 2004. The Plaintiff is represented by: Harlan Stuart Miller III, Esq. Miller Legal, P.C. 3646 Vineville Avenue Macon, GA 31204 Telephone: (478) 216 8529 Facsimile: (866) 704 3161 E-mail: hmiller@pcwlawfirm.com SHOP VAC: Settles Wet-Dry Vacuum Class Actions for $4.25 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a proposed $4.25 million nationwide settlement has been reached in multiple federal class-action lawsuits that claimed popular Shop Vac Corp wet-dry vacuums do not live up to their advertised specifications. U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane on April 1 was asked to approve the settlement that was reached through mediation and without Shop Vac admitting any liability. Lowe's Home Centers Inc. and Lowe's HIW Inc. also are defendants because in addition to carrying regular Shop Vac vacuums, they sell those manufactured to their specifications. Terms include an award of up to $4.25 million and Shop Vac agreeing to extend its warranty on the motors of the vacuums by two years. The $4.25 million would cover attorney fees and costs plus an award not to exceed $5,000 each for the named plaintiffs. For those whose warranty has expired there will be a two-year extension from the effective date of the settlement. Shop Vac has agreed to alter the manner in which peak horsepower and tank size ratings are labeled and marketed. The proposed settlement would resolve suits that alleged Shop Vac overstated the peak horsepower ratings and provided misleading marketing information about the canister size measurement. Shop Vac, which is headquartered in Williamsport, denied the allegations and claimed no customers were deceived. But, a plaintiff's expert concluded based on tests he conducted the vacuums were incapable of reaching even half their advertised peak horsepower and the automatic shutoff feature causes them to stop working when the tanks reached between 47 and 83 percent of capacity. If approved, the settlement would affect the thousands in the United States who since Jan. 1, 2006, purchased or acquired a wet- dry Shop Vac vacuum. The motion filed on April 1 asks Judge Kane to preliminary approve the proposed settlement and certify the class it affects. She also is asked to approve the form and manner of the notice to inform class members of the settlement and schedule a hearing to determine its fairness. Notice of the settlement, once approved, will be sent to class members who can be identified through defendants' records. Notices also will be on www.shopvacphpsettlement.com, published in magazines including People and placed on the Conversant Ad Network and Facebook. According to the terms, the defendants have waived their right to appeal any order related to the court's determination of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses or awards to plaintiffs. The original suit was filed in 2012 with a consolidated complaint following in 2013. A court document notes more than 85,000 pages of documents were reviewed during the litigation. Plaintiffs sought unspecified punitive and compensatory damages for alleged breach of warranty and violations of consumer fraud laws of all states except New Jersey. Proceedings in a parallel suit in New Jersey state court were stayed pending completion of the federal litigation. SNYDER'S-LANCE: Recalls Roasted & Salted Cashew Products -------------------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall for a limited amount of Emerald(R) 100 Calorie Pack Roasted & Salted Cashew Halves & Pieces product, distributed nationwide, due to the possible presence of small glass pieces. This voluntary recall covers only specific production codes of the following product: Emerald(R) 100 Calorie Pack Roasted & Salted Cashew Halves & Pieces 7 Packs / 0.62oz No injuries have been reported to date. We are recalling these products because they may contain small pieces of glass that could potentially cause injury. Although our investigation is ongoing, we believe the source of the glass to be the raw cashews received from one of our suppliers under a specific lot code. We are taking this action out of an abundance of caution after receiving a consumer complaint. Consumers who may have purchased the product listed above should not consume it but should contact Consumer Affairs for a full refund online at http://www.emeraldnuts.com/contact-emerald/or by calling 503-364-0399 between 8am and 5pm Pacific Time, Monday - Friday. The voluntary recall is limited to the production codes listed below. To locate the production code on the carton or inner package, consumers should look next to the nutrition facts panel. No other production codes, sizes or varieties of Emerald products are affected by this recall. Information regarding Emerald product affected by this recall: Product Name: Emerald 100 Calorie Packs Roasted & Salted Cashew ------------ Halves & Pieces Retail Carton UPC Code: 0 10300 33324 1 ----------------------- Retail Carton Best Before Date: 12 DEC 16 ------------------------------ 13 DEC 16 18 DEC 16 21 DEC 16 Inner Package UPC Code: 0 10300 33399 9 ---------------------- Inner Package Production Code: 15346D346S ----------------------------- 15347D346S 15352D346S 15355D346S The quality and safety of our products are the top priority for our company. We apologize to our retail customers and consumers and sincerely regret any inconvenience created by this recall. We are working and cooperating fully with the U. S. Food & Drug Administration on this voluntary recall. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/50qkKp SYSTEMS CONNECTION: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Johnson and Vincent Smith, Plaintiffs, v. Systems Connection of Maryland, Inc., Defendant, case No. 1:16-cv-00630- JKB (D. Md., March 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.; and unpaid wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article Sections 3-401, et seq.; and unpaid wages, treble damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article Sections 3-501, et seq. The case is assigned to Judge James K. Bredar. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request that a jury of their peers hear and decide all possible claims brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Spicer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Tel: (410) 244-7005 Fax: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: jspicer@nicholllaw.com THAMES LANDSCAPE: Faces "Varela" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Victor Varela, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Thames Landscape And Design, Inc., and John F. Thames, Case No. 1:16-cv-03914 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing landscaping and maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 - and - Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784-3541 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org TREMONT TOWING: Engaged in Illegal Towing, "Mas" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Ratjl Mas, a Florida Resident, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Tremont Towing, Inc., Tremont Towing Investment, LLC, City of Miami Beach, a Florida municipal corporation, the Defendants, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-008314-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade County, April 1, 2016), seeks declaratory relief and damages due to alleged illegal non-consent towing of the Plaintiff's automobile. The complaint says the Defendants inappropriately profited from illegal nonconsent towing in clear violation of statutorily- prescribed towing practices, including, but not limited to failure to obtain express written authorization from property owners to perform nonconsent towing of vehicles and failure to provide documentary proof of express written authorization to vehicle owners. Tremont Towing operates a vehicle towing business in Miami Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq. COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON, COLSON MATTHEWS, MARTINEZ, GONZALES, KALBAC & KANE 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476 7400 Facsimile: (305) 476 7444 E-mail: Ervin@colson.com US BANK: Faces "Smith" Suit in Florida Over Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Smith, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-21146-MGC (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged breach of contract. U.S. Bank, N.A. operates a commercial banking service company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett Michael Amron, Esq. BAST AMRON LLP One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 379-7904 Facsimile: (305) 379-7905 E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Vigorously Defend Cold-fx Ad Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Geordon Omand, writing for the Canadian Press, reports that the makers of Cold-fX are in court fighting allegations they ignored their own research and misled consumers about the short-term effectiveness of the popular cold and flu remedy. Valeant Pharmaceuticals was in British Columbia Supreme Court on April 4, opposing an application to grant the lawsuit class-action status. Vancouver Island resident Don Harrison launched a claim in 2012 against Valeant and its subsidiary, Afexa Life Sciences, over advertising saying that Cold-fX offered "immediate relief of cold and flu symptoms" if taken over a three-day period at the first sign of illness. Mr. Harrison's notice of claim said Valeant and Afexa continued to "knowingly or recklessly" promote Cold-fX despite evidence the natural-health product only had a possible positive impact after being taken daily for prolonged periods of two-to-six months. "The gist of the case is that people paid money for a worthless product . . . and the money they spent should be returned," said Mr. Harrison's lawyer, John Green, in an interview. Valeant also unnecessarily exposed its customers to a health threat by distributing a useless drug with a risk of adverse side effects, he said. The Laval, Que.,-based company denied the accusations in a statement and said it will fight the application for class-action certification. "Valeant believes the suit is without merit and is vigorously defending this matter," said the document. None of the allegations have been tested in court. Afexa is the original manufacturer and license holder of Cold-fX and was bought by Valeant in 2011. Valeant has been marred by a succession of controversies in recent months that have sapped its stock value and hammered its reputation, leading the CEO of the embattled Quebec drugmaker to step down in March. The series of setbacks include gouging customers by hiking drug prices and filing misstated earnings, the latter of which it blames on its former chief financial officer. Mr. Green also alleged Valeant and Afexa kept quiet about an internal study conducted in the early 2000s that contradicted the health claims around Cold-fX. "The defendants knew at least as early as 2004, when they had a study done themselves, that Cold-fX might be even less effective than a placebo," he said. "The study actually showed the placebo to be more effective at relieving (some) cold symptoms than Cold-fX." The study found the product effectively reduced the severity of a runny nose during the early days of a respiratory infection, but that it had limited efficacy in treating other symptoms, particularly a cough and stuffy nose. If the case receives class-action approval, anyone who bought Cold-fX for the short-term relief of cold and flu symptoms will be able to apply to a fund that will be created to get their money back, said Mr. Green. He estimated the total to be refunded would amount to about $500 million. That calculation uses $50 million per year in estimated revenues for Valeant from Cold-fX, then assumes a 100-per-cent markup, over a five-year time period. Because of differences in provincial law, a court victory in B.C. wouldn't allow people outside the province who bought Cold-fX to make a claim, said Mr. Green. For that reason, an identical lawsuit has been launched in Saskatchewan, where a positive ruling would apply to everyone across the country. A successful judgment from a B.C. representative plaintiff could be taken to Saskatchewan to bolster the case in that province, he said. Valeant was expected to begin its defense on April 5 or April 6. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Franklin" Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart Stores and Kraft Heinz. The case is captioned as Tara Franklin, individually and obo similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00515- JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla., March 3, 2016). The case is assigned to Judge James S. Moody, Jr. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq. THE WILNER FIRM, PA 2nd Floor, 444 E Duval St Jacksonville, FL 32202 Tel: (904) 446-9817 Fax: (904) 446-9825 Email: Rlantinberg@wilnerfirm.com WORTH FINANCE: "Garcia" Action Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- Jessica Garcia, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Worth Finance Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00268 (W.D. Tex., March 3, 2016), seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. Worth Finance Corporation provides personal installment loans throughout the state of Texas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. Daniel B. Ross, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 474-7677 Fax: (512) 474-5306 Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com * Senator Says Homeowners Need Coverage for Failing Foundations --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen McWilliams, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that Sen. Chris Murphy said on April 2 that homeowners need coverage for their failing concrete foundations. "People need a level of protection," Sen. Murphy told eight homeowners grappling with the issue. "You assume it [homeowners insurance] covers your house. If you advertise a homeowners insurance policy that it covers your entire home. To call it a homeowners policy when it only covers two-thirds of your home is wrong." Sen. Murphy met with eight homeowners on April 3 in the basement of Willington resident Tim Heim's basement to learn more about the issue and hear directly from homeowners. "We are all the same here, we all get dressed the same, we are all middle class," Heim said to the Senator. "No middle class citizen has $200,000 to pay for this." As of March 30, 168 homeowners have filed complaints with the Department of Consumer Protection alleging their foundations are failing. A dozen homeowners have sued their insurance companies for refusing their claims and four others have filed a class- action law suit against 111 active insurance companies in Connecticut. Sen. Murphy said he thought the best solution for homeowners would come from a cooperative agreement with the insurance companies. "It may be that the best way to solve this it to negotiate with the insurance companies, but right now the state's leverage with the insurance companies is small because we don't have the scope," Sen. Murphy said. Like Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Murphy encouraged the homeowners present to get other homeowners with the issue to file a complaint with the DCP. "It's very hard to pitch solutions if we don't know the scope," Sen. Murphy said. Homeowners impressed upon the senator, the urgency of their situation. Wally Brisson, a Stafford resident, said his house is showing signs of its foundation failing. "I don't have time to take a chance on this," Mr. Brisson said. "I can't wait, I have to figure something out now." * EPA to Set PFOA Permanent Health Advisory Amid Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff McMenemy writing for Fosters, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency could be just weeks away from developing a lifetime health advisory for a toxin that closed the city-owned Haven well and has contaminated a growing number of water supplies in New Hampshire. Jim Murphy, the team leader for community involvement and government relations for the EPA's Boston office, said "we're hoping it's just a matter of weeks now" before his agency sets the permanent health advisory for PFOA. The city of Portsmouth closed the Haven well in May 2014 after the Air Force found levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 12.5 times higher than the EPA's PHA. The EPA classified PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which was also found in Haven well but below health advisory levels, as "contaminants of emerging concern." PFOS and PFOA are a class of chemicals known as perfluorochemicals. PFCs were also found in the city-owned Smith and Harrison wells at Pease International Tradeport but never above the PHA. The EPA has not set an enforceable drinking water standard for PFOA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the state Department of Environmental Services said in a recent press release about PFOA found in wells in Merrimack and Litchfield. EPA's Office of Water has, however, established a Provisional Health Advisory (PHA) of 400 parts per trillion for PFOA, but that level is only for short-term contact, it acknowledged. DES is now providing bottled water for anyone whose wells test above 100 parts per trillion. That action comes as both Gov. Maggie Hassan and U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., have called on the EPA to expedite its effort to set a lower health advisory for PFOA because of the potentially dangerous and serious health effects from exposure to the contaminant. Shawn Garvin, Region III EPA administrator, said the "EPA is in the process of developing an updated lifetime health advisory for PFOA based on the best available science." Mr. Garvin, in a letter to attorney Robert Bilott of Cincinnati, Ohio, who has represented thousands of people exposed to PFOA, said that once the lifetime health advisory is established, it will "supersede the agency's provisional value for PFOA." He predicted the lifetime health advisory would be set "this spring." Mr. Bilott, in a letter to Tom Burak, commissioner of New Hampshire's Department of Environmental Services, said the science panel was established after a class action lawsuit was filed because of PFOA exposure Ohio and West Virginia. As part of the settlement of the case filed by about 70,000 people, the so-called "C-8 science panel" spent more than seven years and $30 million studying the effects of PFOA exposure, he said in the letter. The panel determined human exposure to even low levels of PFOA caused "six serious diseases," Mr. Bilott said, including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, hypertension and high cholesterol. He chided the DES for saying health effects from PFCs are inconclusive, saying that claim is "inaccurate and ignores the vast wealth of published, peer reviewed and independent C-8 Science Panel Research." In the letter, Mr. Bilott also noted that EPA's Science Advisory Board "recommended that PFOA be characterized as a 'likely' human carcinogen almost a decade ago." "Given the biopersistent nature of PFOA -- meaning that even the tiniest, barely detectable amounts in drinking water will build up in the human body over time -- and the finding of adverse health effects in laboratory studies at lower and lower dose levels, many scientists are questioning how a 'safe' level can ever be set for PFOA in drinking water," Mr. Bilott said in the March 8 letter. Sarah Vose, state toxicologist for Vermont, confirmed that her state set its PFOA drinking water guidelines at 20 parts per trillion, well below the 400 parts per trillion PHA set by the EPA. Vermont's level was set after looking at the draft health effects determined by the EPA in 2014, Ms. Vose said. "You take a look at the toxicity value and you combine that with the exposure and that gives you the value," she said. She noted PFOA exposure is "particularly concerning" because "it has a very long half life in the body." She also pointed to the correlation of adverse health effects caused by PFOA exposure. "When you combine that with the fact it's in your body two to four years, those two things led us to the conclusion this should be mitigated," Ms. Vose said. The level of concern people exposed to PFOA should have should be based "on what level is found in their water and how long they've been drinking it," Ms. Vose said. Andrea Amico, the Portsmouth mother whose two children attend day care at the former Pease Air Force Base where PFCs led to the closure of the Haven well, said she applauds "the efforts of Sen. Ayotte and the governors of New York, Vermont and New Hampshire in their recent letters to the EPA advocating for an expeditious decision on lower standards for PFOA." "If the EPA continues to delay their decision on standards, I would like to see New Hampshire take a much more proactive and progressive stance and set their own standards for PFCs as seen in other states such as New York, New Jersey and Vermont," Ms. Amico said. She noted the former Pease Air Force Base, which is now a Superfund cleanup site is "not the only New Hampshire community facing PFC contamination in their drinking water." "The state owes it to the many communities dealing with PFCs in their drinking water to have standards that are protective of our health and should not delay setting a standard any longer," Ms. Amico said. Portsmouth's Deputy Public Works Director Brian Goetz acknowledged that if the EPA lowered the PFOA standard, it could have wide- ranging implications on communities. "You've got something now that's in the news and there's a lot of sites being tested," Mr. Goetz said. He noted the city is working to design a new carbon filter system to treat all three city-owned wells at Pease. City officials are still searching for a site for another well, but he acknowledged the Air Force shifted its priorities to treat the tainted wells at Pease first. "The city will get that volume of water through treatment of the Haven Well," Mr. Goetz said. The city still hopes to have test wells established for a new water source by the fall, noting "treatment isn't going to happen right away." ********* 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 * * *