/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160414.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 75 Headlines 1031 TAX: Court Orderd Payment of Assigned Claims to ASM A1 SERVICE: Violated CLC & IWC Wage Orders, "Rasem" Suit Claims ALFA VISION: "Virden" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Arkansas AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: Violated FLSA, "Guerra" Suit Claims ARL CREDIT SERVICES: "Reynolds" Class Action Deal Okayed ASSET RECOVERY: Court Grants Class Certification in "Datta" Suit AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Trial Court Ruling in "Rogers" Affirmed BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Steward" Suit in W.D. Wash., Seattle BLUE CROSS: Faces "Hill" Class Suit Over Sherman Act Violation BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC: Court Dismisses "Landis" Complaint CAINE & WIENER: Violated TCPA & FDCPA, "Garcia" Suit Claims CARDO WINDOWS: Court Decertifies "Adami" FLSA Collective Action CHECK 'N GO: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "McDonald" Suit Claims CHICAGO, IL: Firefighter Trainees Allege Harassment at Academy CHRISTINE HERENDEEN: M.D. Fla. Dismisses CadleRock Appeal CITIMORTGAGE INC: "Kester" Suit Over Wrongful Foreclosure Tossed CONAIR CORP: Bid to Decertify Nationwide Class Granted in Part COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Won't Decertify Class in "Parish" Suit CRYPTSY: Placed Under Receivership Amid Class Action CVS: Faces Class Action Over Advanced Eye Health Product DATA CHECK: Faces " Bailey" Suit in E.D. Cal., Fresno DENVER, CO: Trial Scheduled in Hiring Discrimination Class Action DIGNITY HEALTH: "Brock" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Wilson" Suit in Southern Dist. Ohio DIRECTV LLC: Loses Arbitration Bid in "Renteria-Camacho" Suit DNTW CHARTERED: S.D.N.Y. Court Tosses Securities Litigation DR. PEPPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DRAFTKINGS: Mandated to Halt Paid Daily Fantasy Sports Contests ELLIS TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Watson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Physicians Healthsource May Conduct Discovery FANDUEL INC: Violated CLRA UCL, & UBP, "Sobel" Suit Claims FARMERS INSURANCE: July 2017 Trial Scheduled in Class Action FELTEX: Appeal Court Hears Arguments in Investor Class Action FIRST STUDENT: Faces "Terrell" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Missouri Law FOWLER PACKING: Plaintiffs Must Answers Deposition Questions FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Seeks More Information on Settlement GARMIN INTERNATIONAL: "Meyers" Suit Dismissed GARRISON PROPERTY: Court Drops Other Defendants in "Cielo" GREENBAX ENTERPRISES: To Sell Properties Amid Class Action GRUBHUB INC: Court Narrows "Tan" Driver Misclassification Suit GUAM: Ordered to Pay $2.2MM in Attorneys' Fees in Tax Refund Case GYMBOREE CORP: Violated UCL, FAL & CLRA, "Dennis" Suit Claims HAIN CELESTIAL: Consumers to Get Checks in Organic Shampoo Suit HG STAFFING: Courts Denies Class Certification in "Sargant" HONEST COMPANY: Violated UFUBP, CLRA & FAL, "Gomez" Suit Claims HONEYWELL INT'L: Court Permits Filing of Second Amended Complaint IL GABBIANO: Faces "Sulaj" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act INTELLICORP RECORDS: Must Defend Against "Legrand" Suit J.C. PENNEY: "Knatt" Suit Over Paid Time Off Sent to Arbitration JEFFERSON COUNTY: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Suit v. BOE JPMORGAN CHASE: "Farrell" Suit Seeks Redress of Plan Under ERISA KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG TAN: Faces "Sekura" Class Suit in Ill. Ct. LIHUA INT'L: Court Drops Individual Defendants in Securities Suit LITTLE GASPARILLA: "Demeter" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under FLSA MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Caputo" Class Action in N.J. Court MICHIGAN: Detroit Public Schools' Board Files Class Action MRI INTERNATIONAL: "Takiguchi" Suit Wins Class Certification NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Customers May Receive $6.6MM Settlement Payouts NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Crisis to Prompt Early Retirement NATIONAL SECURITIES: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Rutella" Suit Claims NELSON WESTERBERG: Truth-in-Leasing Claims in "Mervyn" Dismissed NEVADA: Settles Fernley Flood Class Action for $18.1 Million NEW JERSEY SYMPHONY: Violated TCCWNA, "Fruchter" Suit Claims NEW ORLEANS, LA: Sheriff Faces Criticism Over Jail Management OVERTURE LLC: "Chun" Suit Seeks Damages & OT Wages Under FLSA PACIFIC TOMATO: Faces "Wingard" Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation PALOS VERDES, CA: Some Locals Defend Lunada Bay Boys Amid Suit PATRICK M. CONNELLY PC: Faces "Allah-Mensah" Suit in Maryland PENNSYLVANIA: Court Trims "Chimenti" Suit v. Dept of Corrections PEPSICO INC: "Taylor" Class Action Moved to S.D. Fla. PFIZER INC: Judge Grants Request to Toss Zoloft MDL PLAINVILLE, CT: State Defendants to File Revised Privilege Log POLLO OPERATIONS: Class Action Deal in "Daisy" Okayed PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids PREMIER TAMPA: Faces Suit for Alleged Violation of FLSA, Fla. Law QAUKER OATS CO: Violated IFDCA, "Gates" Suit Claims RIDDELL INC: April 14 Status Conference Set in Helmet Suit RNC INDUSTRIES: "Valerio" Suit Has Conditional Certification RYAN TRANSPORTATION: "Bell" Suit Sent to Arbitration SAN DIEGO RETIREMENT: Cal. Ct. App. Rules on Appeals v. SDCERS SAN DIEGO RETIREMENT: Judgments Affirmed in "Abbe" Appeal SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Philadelphia Court Rejects Paxil Case SPECTRUM BRANDS: Faces "Rosner" Class Action in E.D.N.Y. SPOTIFY: Settles Royalties Dispute with NMPA for $21 Million SSM HEALTH: Violated ERISA, "Feather" Suit Claims SUN-MAID GROWERS: "Talavera" Suit Has Conditional Certification TAKATA CORP: Triple D Suit Moved from E.D. Tenn. to S.D. Fla. TITLEMAX OF TEXAS: Faces "Torres" Suit Over FLSA Violation TOKANA CAFE: Faces "Astudillo" Class Action in S.D.N.Y. TRI-VALLEY CORP: Court Dismisses K&L Gates From Investors' Suit TURNER RESTAURANTS: Court Sends Waitstaff Suit to Arbitration UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Decertification Bid in "O'Connor" Denied UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Appeal Drivers Class Certification Ruling UNITED STATES: Hospital Operators' Suit Over TRICARE Tossed VANCOUVER, WA: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel in Inmate Suit VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Action Over BlueTec Diesel Models VOLKSWAGEN AG: Meets with Dealers Amid Emissions Class Actions VW CREDIT: "Ballew" Suit Transferred from D. Mont. to N.D. Cal. WEST COVINA CORPORATE: Faces "San Nicholas" Suit in Calif. Ct. WORLD WRESTLING: Court Narrows Claims in Former Wrestlers' Suits ZYNGA INC: Court Enters Order of Dismissal in Securities Suit * Fate of Class Actions Hang in Balance Post-Scalia * Canada's SC Tackles Class Action Multi-Jurisdictional Issues ********* 1031 TAX: Court Orderd Payment of Assigned Claims to ASM -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph C. Spero issued an order providing instruction regarding the distribution of funds to assignors or assignees of bankruptcy claims in the case captioned ANITA HUNTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-cv- 02079-JCS (N.D. Cal.). Claims were asserted on behalf of a class of approximately 400 individuals who lost money they deposited with certain Qualified Intermediaries ("QIs") as the result of a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Edward H. Okun, who, with the help of others, acquired several QIs, which were held under the name The 1031 Tax Group, LLC. Sandra Stroud and Sam L. Braswell were class members who lost funds, with claim amounts of $54,363.69 and $51,959.97, respectively. The class plaintiffs eventually settled their claims in a series of class settlements. When Okun was convicted for various criminal offenses and a Chapter 11 bankruptcy was initiated by the 1031 Tax Group, Stroud and Braswell sold their bankruptcy claims by entering into assignment agreements with ASM Capital. Stroud and Braswell argued that the assignments are limited to recovery from the estate in the bankruptcy case, and that the decision in Okun's criminal case finding that restitution should be paid to ASM under a similar assignment was incorrectly decided by the Virginia court and should be rejected. Judge Spero found that the Braswell and Stroud assignment agreements are unambiguous as to the scope of the assignments, assigning to ASM not only claims to be paid out of the estate in the bankruptcy case but also Stroud and Braswell's claims in the present action. The judge also concluded that another claimant, Steven Schoenfeld, does not contest ASM's assertion that his claim has been assigned to ASM because of his failure to appear. As such, Judge Spero directed the plaintiffs to make settlement payments on the Braswell, Stroud and Schoenfeld claims in this action directly to ASM, pursuant to the assignments between ASM and those individuals. A full-text copy of Judge Spero's March 25, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/Rk8Nqffrom Leagle.com. Anita Hunter, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Robert Zelle -- tzelle@zelmcd.com -- Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough -- bmcdonough@zelmcd.com -- Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis -- rcurtis@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP, Thomas W. Evans -- tevans@zelmcd.com -- Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr. -- tfoley@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP. Johnna Bozza, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP, Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP. Celltex Site Services, LTD, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP, Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP. Grande Investment LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP,Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP. Quirk Infiniti, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Plaintiff, represented byAnthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP,Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP. Whitton Michael, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byAnthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP, Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP. Sadi Suhweil, as Trustee of the Suhweil Revocable Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP,Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP. Citibank, N.A., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, represented by Carol Lynn Thompson -- cthompson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, John Kenneth Van De Weert, Jr. -- jvandeweert@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Michael Fee -- kfee@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Bruce Blocker -- mblocker@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Reynolds Heisler, II, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice. Countrywide Bank, FSB, a Virginia corporation, Defendant, represented by Madeline Anne Zamoyski, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Allen W. Burton -- aburton@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley J. Butwin -- bbutwin@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Gary Svirsky -- gsvirsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Madeline Anne Zamoyski, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Allen W. Burton, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley J. Butwin, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Gary Svirsky, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. United Western Bank, Defendant, represented by William J. Goines, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Cindy Hamilton, Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Karen Rosenthal, Greenberg Traurig LLP. Boulder Capital, LLC, a Massachusetts Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice & Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice. Boulder Columbus, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice & Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice. Boulder West Oaks, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP,Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice & Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice. Boulder Holdings, VI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice & Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice. Roy S MacDowell, Jr, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice &Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice. Cordell Funding LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited partnership, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell, Gilbert Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC, Katherine R. Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP, Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP. Cordell Consultants New York, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell, Gilbert Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC, Katherine R. Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP, Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP. Cordell Consultants Inc. Money Purchase Plan, a Qualified Retirement Plan Trust, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell, Gilbert Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Douglas E. Spelfogel, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC,Katherine R. Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP, Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP. Robin Rodriguez, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell, Gilbert Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC, Katherine R. Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP,Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP. Jorden Burt, LLP, a Connecticut limited liability partnership, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Matthew Blute, Murphy Pearson Bradley Feeney,Lawrence A Kellogg, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider & Grossman LLP &Timothy J. Halloran, Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney. Kutak Rock, LLP, a Nebraska limited liability partnership, Defendant, represented by Ethan D. Dettmer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, F. Joseph Warin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Fink, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Wayne Allen Schrader, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Joseph O. Kavan, Defendant, represented by Ethan D. Dettmer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, F. Joseph Warin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice,Scott A. Fink, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Wayne Allen Schrader, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Foley & Lardner, LLP, a Wisconsin limited liability partnership, Defendant, represented by Allison Lane Cooper, Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP,James Carnegie Krieg, Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP & Jennifer Robin McGlone, Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman LLP. Stephen I Burr, Defendant, represented by Allison Lane Cooper, Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP, James Carnegie Krieg, Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP & Jennifer Robin McGlone, Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman LLP. Silicon Valley Law Group, a California law corporation, Defendant, represented by Jerome Nathan Lerch, Lerch Sturmer LLP, Brett Alan Broge, Lerch Sturmer LLP, Christopher Ashworth, Silicon Valley Law Group & Debra Steel Sturmer, Lerch Sturmer LLP. Boulder Holdings X LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP,Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice & Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice. Cordell Consultants Money Purchase Plan, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell, Gilbert Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC, Katherine R. Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP, Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice &Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP. Sam Braswell, Defendant, represented by Richard William Meaglia. Sandra Stroud, Defendant, represented by Richard William Meaglia. ASM Capital, L.P., Interested Party, represented by Michael Delaney, Baker & Hostier LLP. ASM Capital III, L.P., Interested Party, represented by Michael Delaney, Baker & Hostier LLP. About 1031 Tax Group Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, The 1031 Tax Group LLC -- http://www.ixg1031.com/-- was a privately held consolidated group of qualified intermediaries created to service real property exchanges under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. 131 Tax Group had total assets of $164.23 million and total liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2007. The Company and 15 of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 07-11448) on May 14, 2007. Gerard A. McHale, Jr., was appointed Chapter 11 trustee. Jonathan L. Flaxer, Esq., and David J. Eisenman, Esq., at Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, represent the Chapter 11 trustee. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC acts as claims and notice agent. Thomas J. Weber, Esq., Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq., and Allen G. Kadish, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Former CEO Edward H. Okun is in federal prison at Northern Neck Regional Jail in Warsaw, Virginia, after being convicted of mail fraud and other charges. Mr. Okun allegedly engaged in several misappropriations of funds of 1031 Tax Group and other entities. A1 SERVICE: Violated CLC & IWC Wage Orders, "Rasem" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ahmed Rasem, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A-1 Service Appliances, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC616315 (Cal Super. Ct. - Los Angeles Cty., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief, pursuant to California Labor Code (CLC) & Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders. A1 Service Appliance specializes in heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC). The company's line of business includes selection, display, knowledge, availability, delivery, installation, and repairing services. It also provides parts and accessories for home or business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Hodgkins, Esq. CIVIL JUSTICE LAW, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Facsimile: (310) 496 0533 Telephone: (213) 529 0003 E-mail: travis@civiljustice.com ALFA VISION: "Virden" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- Martha Virden, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. Alfa Vision Insurance Corporation, Case No. 15CV-16-00043, was removed from the Conway County Circuit Court, to the US District Court for the Eastern District Court of Arkansas. The District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00186-JM to the proceeding. Alfa Vision Insurance Corporation is a subsidiary of Alfa Corp. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex T. Gray, Esq. George Nathan Steel, Esq. Jeremy Y. Hutchinson, Esq. Scott E. Poynter, Esq. STEEL, WRIGHT & COLLIER, PLLC 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 251 1587 Facsimile: (204) 244 2614 E-mail: alex@swcfirm.com nate@swcfirm.com jeremy@swcfirm.com scott@swcfirm.com - and - Jessica Virden Mallett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER MILLER 1601 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone: (501) 374 6300 Facsimile: (501) 907 0661 E-mail: jvirden@petermillerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David M. Donovan, Esq. WATTS, DONOVAN & TILLEY, P.A. 200 River Market Avenue, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-1769 Telephone: (501) 372 1406 E-mail: david.donovan@wdt-law.com AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: Violated FLSA, "Guerra" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Luis Brian Hernandez Guerra, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Al-Flex Exterminators, Inc., and Alexander E. Napoles, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21242-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2016), seeks to recover double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Al-Flex Exterminators provides disinfecting and pest control services. The Company operates in the state of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. Attorney For Plaintiff 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM ARL CREDIT SERVICES: "Reynolds" Class Action Deal Okayed -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned KENNETH REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. ARL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., DONETTE JABLONSKI, AND RICHARD JABLONSKI, Defendants, No. 8:15CV25 (D. Neb.), Judge Laurie Smith Camp adopted the findings and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett and granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of class action settlement. On January 15, 2015, Kenneth Reynolds filed a class action lawsuit against the defendants, asserting class claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). After extensive arms-length negotiations, the parties eventually entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement, which was preliminarily approved by the court on October 20, 2015. A fairness hearing was held on January 26, 2016. For reasons stated in Judge Gossett's Findings and Recommendations, Judge Camp concluded that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The settlement awards the Class Representative $3,500 as statutory damages and for his services, and awards the Class $15,120 as statutory damages to be divided equally by letter among the class members who do not request exclusion. A full-text copy of Judge Camp's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/fpnbBsfrom Leagle.com. Kenneth Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg, HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM. Kenneth Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. ARL Credit Services, Inc., Donette Jablonski, Richard Jablonski, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Morris -- cmorris@bassford.com -- BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM. ASSET RECOVERY: Court Grants Class Certification in "Datta" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned, MEENA ARTHUR DATTA, Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00188-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Meena Arthur Datta brings the instant action against Defendant Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC. The putative class action arises out of Defendant's attempt to collect upon consumer debts from Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Plaintiff alleges that, at some previous point in time, she incurred a consumer debt issued by HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., for personal, family, or household purposes. The debt was later consigned, placed, or otherwise assigned to Defendant for collection. On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC asserts two causes of action, based on violations of (1) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and (2) the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed the motion seeking class certification of "(i) all persons with addresses in California, (ii) to whom Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, a collection letter in the form of Exhibit 1 in an envelope in the form of Exhibit 2, (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally owed to HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., (iv) which was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (v) which were not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office, (vi) during the period one year prior to the date of filing this action through the date of class certification." Defendant does not contest that Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23(a)'s requirements for numerosity, commonality, and typicality. In her Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/D6a7tU from Leagle.com, Judge Koh found that the Plaintiff has sufficiently established superiority for purposes of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and certified the class. The Court appointed Meena Arthur Datta as class representative and Fred Schwinn and Raeon Roulston of the Consumer Law Center and Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates as class counsel to represent the class. Meena Arthur Datta is represented by: O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES 25 E. Washington St., Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312)372-8822 - and - Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq. Fred W. Schwinn, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 510 Washington, DC, 20036 Tel: (202) 452-6252 Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is represented by David Ian Dalby, Esq. -- ddalby@hinshawlaw.com -- Justin Michael Penn, Esq. -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Trial Court Ruling in "Rogers" Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JILL ROGERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. B256085 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial court's final judgment entered in favor of the Automobile Club of Southern California and the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (collectively, the Auto Club). Jill Rogers, who worked as an Auto Club sales agent who sold automobile insurance on commission, sued the Auto Club, alleging that the use of the "Persistency with Prior Carrier" factor as a basis for the amount of commission constitutes an unlawful and unfair business practice because it incentivizes sales agents to discriminate against previously uninsured consumers in violation of Proposition 103. Rogers brought claims under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and for breach of contract and declaratory relief on behalf of other Auto Club sales agents who allegedly engaged in discriminatory practices that harmed previously uninsured consumers. Rogers, however, never engaged in such discriminatory practices and was paid fully under the negotiated terms of her contract. The trial court sustained the Auto Club's demurrer to Rogers' first amended complaint, concluding that Rogers lacked standing to bring the UCL claims, that she failed to allege a breach of contract, and that she could not seek declaratory relief premised on her flawed UCL and contract claims. The Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's ruling. The appellate court held that Rogers lacks standing to prosecute a UCL claim because she has not been economically harmed. The court pointed out that Rogers was paid what she was owed under her negotiated agreement with the Auto Club and therefore received the benefit of the bargain. The appellate court also stated that Rogers' breach of contract claim fared no better as Auto Club did not breach their agreement. Consequently, the appellate court also concluded that Rogers cannot state a claim for declaratory relief because it is premised on her nonviable UCL and breach of contract claims A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/pWGIetfrom Leagle.com. Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Consumer Watchdog, Harvey Rosenfield, Pamela Pressley, and Laura Antonini for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, John T. Brooks -- jbrooks@sheppardmullin.com -- and Jessica L. Mackaness for Defendants and Respondents. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Steward" Suit in W.D. Wash., Seattle ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A. The case is captioned Karen Steward, an unmarried woman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., a foreign corporation, MTC Financial Inc., doing business as: Trustee Corps, and John Does 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. #: 2:16-cv-00505-RSM (W.D. Wash., Seattle, April 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Ricardo S Martinez. Bank of America operates as a full service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment services for the public. The bank serves individual and institutional customers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicente Omar Barrazam, Esq. BARRAZA LAW PLLC 14245-F AMBAUM BLVD SW BURIEN, WA 98166 Telephone: (206) 933 7861 Facsimile: (206) 933 7863 E-mail: omar@barrazalaw.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Hill" Class Suit Over Sherman Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Hill, Angie Hill, Kevin, Bradberry, and Christy Bradberry, the Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama; Premera Blue Cross, also Dba Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona; Usable Mutual Insurance Company, D/B/A Arkansas Blue Cross And Blue Shield; Anthem, Inc., F/K/A Wellpoint, Inc., D/B/A Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Blue Cross of California, Blue Cross of Southern California, Blue Cross of Northern California, Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service Inc. D/B/A Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nevada, Anthem Health Plans, Inc., D/B/A Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., D/B/A Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Indiana, et. al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03016-RAL (S. Dak., April 8, 2016), seeks to enjoin ongoing conspiracy between and among BCBS-SD, the Individual Blue Plans and BCBSA to allocate markets in violation of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act. Anthem Insurance Companies doing business as Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, provides health insurance plans and Medicare solutions to individuals, families, and employers in the United States. It offers wellness, dental, vision, life disability, small business, and group health insurance coverage plans. The company is based in Indianapolis, Indiana with additional offices and locations in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clint Sargent, Esq. MEIERHENRY SARGENT LLP 315 South Phillips A venue Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Telephone: (605) 336 3075 Facsimile: (605) 336 2593 E-mail: clint@meierhenrylaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP P. 0. Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765-0071 Telephone: (225) 687 6396 Facsimile: (225) 687-6398 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com - and - Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq. Centennial Plaza 2575 Kelley Pointe Parkway, Suite 100 Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 330 9860 Facsimile: (405) 231 4701 E-mail: bb@bbameslaw.com BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC: Court Dismisses "Landis" Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina accepted a Memorandum and Recommendation, and overruled Plaintiff's "Objection to Recommendation and Order by Judge Cayer" and "Memorandum Objection to Recommendation and Order by Judge Cayer" in the case captioned, LISA BAIN LANDIS, Plaintiff, v. BUNCOMBE COUNTY NC GOVERNMENT, WANDA GREENE, KATHY HUGHES, BUNCOMBE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DAVID GANTT, BILL STANLEY, MIKE FRUE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, RON MOORE, CITY OF ASHEVILLE, JOHN/JANE DOES1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-146-MR-DSC (W.D.N.C.). Plaintiff introduces herself as, "Lisa Gay Bain Landis, here in known as: 'GLoLady' is a Natural born Female Mystic of the White/Rainbow Prophesied Race, a Starseed, and Lightworker. A certain Class of Traveler, with Riches in the Divine Creator's Heaven and Earth. Graceful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations. Honoring a Divine Feminine Religion of the Universal Mind. Harm None Do As Ye Will, Peace Ambassador in Consciousness, With Divine Inspiration, as guided to stop Injustice and forced servitude to tyrannical rule." The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed her Complaint June 9, 2014, together with motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel. On October 17, 2014, Asheville City Defendants and Buncombe County Defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Recognizing the latitude afforded pro se litigants, the Magistrate Judge signed an Order dated December 3, 2014, which allowed Plaintiff 30 days to file a Fourth Amended Complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thereby denied as moot, and without prejudice, Defendants' various dismissal motions. On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Fourth Amended Complaint, naming as additional Defendants John/Jane Doe 1 through 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation of the District Court, the Honorable Davis S. Cayer, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider the Defendants' motions and to submit to the Court a recommendation for their disposition. On March 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R) containing proposed conclusions of law in support of a recommendation that the Defendants' dismissal motions be granted and Plaintiff's action be dismissed with prejudice. On April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed her "Objection to Recommendation and Order by Judge Cayer" and "Memorandum Objection to Recommendation and Order by Judge Cayer". In his Memorandum of Decision and Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/HXT12Tfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reidinger concluded that the Magistrate Judge's legal analysis is consistent with applicable case law. Defendants are represented by: Curtis William Euler, Esq. COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE 200 College St., Ste 400 Asheville, NC 28801-3040 Tel: (828)250-4112 CAINE & WIENER: Violated TCPA & FDCPA, "Garcia" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Garcia, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Caine & Wiener Company, Inc. and Nestle Waters North America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16- cv-00850-DMS-DHB (S.D. Cal., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, as a result of Defendants' negligently, and/or willfully, contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone without prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff further alleges that he was wrongfully and illegally contacted in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Caine & Weiner, an accounts receivable management enterprise, provides credit and collection services. It offers consumer and commercial third party debt collection, first party debt collection and outsourcing, and letter-writing services, as well as credit, collection, and investigation services. The company also provides missing debtors locating, file handling, ACH debit, address screening, and courier services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kira M. Rubel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL 19689 7Th Ave. NE, Ste. 160 Poulsbo, WA 98370 Telephone: (800) 836 6531 Facsimile: (206) 238 1694 - and - David P. Schafer, Esq. Brian J. Trenz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SCHAFER 2139 N.W. Military HWY, Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78213 Telephone: (210) 348 0500 Facsimile: (210) 348 0520 CARDO WINDOWS: Court Decertifies "Adami" FLSA Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jerome B. Simandle decertified the plaintiff's collective action in the case captioned FRED ADAMI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARDO WINDOWS, INC. d/b/a "Castle, 'The Window People'" et al., Defendants, Civil No. 12-2804 (JBS/JS) (D.N.J.). Fred Adami, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative collective action and class action against Cardo Windows, Inc. and other defendants arising from the defendants' alleged mischaracterization of its window installers as independent contractors. Adami maintained claims for unpaid overtime and all other relief due under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), and the New Jersey Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act (CIIC), as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. The court had granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Aside from the named plaintiff, Adami, the conditionally-certified collective action had two opt-in plaintiffs, namely: Kevin Kern and Tadelisz Czubernat. However, at the final certification step, after completion of all certification discovery and considering all the relevant factors, Judge Simandle found that opt-in plaintiffs Kern and Czubernat are not similarly situated to Adami. The judge found that although the plaintiffs have adequately shown that all of Cardo's window installers were subject to some common employer practices, they have failed to present sufficient evidence that the circumstances of the opt-in plaintffs' employment are similar to the named plaintiff's, or that resolution of the three-member collective action would likely be more efficient than separate actions. A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's March 30, 2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/5Y5TJLfrom Leagle.com. FRED ADAMI, Plaintiff, represented by RICHARD S. HANNYE, HANNYE LLC. CARDO WINDOWS, INC., CHRISTOPHER CARDILLO, SR., CHRISTOPHER CARDILLO, JR., NICHOLAS CARDILLO, EDWARD JONES, JOHN J. BELMONTE, PAT TRICOCCI, Defendants, represented by ERIC ROBERT CLENDENING -- eric.clendening@flastergreenberg.com -- FLASTER/GREENBERG PC, KENNETH S. GOODKIND -- ken.goodkind@flastergreenberg.com -- FLASTER/GREENBERG PC & MICHAEL D. HOMANS -- michael.homans@flastergreenberg.com -- FLASTER GREENBERG PC. NICHOLAS BRUCATO, Defendant, EDWARD JONES, CHRISTOPHER CARDILLO, JR., CARDO WINDOWS, INC., NICHOLAS CARDILLO, PAT TRICOCCI, JOHN J. BELMONTE, CHRISTOPHER CARDILLO, SR., Counter Claimants, represented by ERIC ROBERT CLENDENING, FLASTER/GREENBERG PC & MICHAEL D. HOMANS, FLASTER GREENBERG PC. TIMOTHY NAGLE, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL D. HOMANS, FLASTER GREENBERG PC & RICHARD S. HANNYE, HANNYE LLC. RODERICK J ARCE', Interested Party, represented by MICHAEL ALAN KATZ, Paul & Katz, P.C.. FRED ADAMI, Counter Defendant, represented by RICHARD S. HANNYE, HANNYE LLC. CHECK 'N GO: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "McDonald" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia McDonald, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. Check 'n Go of California, Inc., and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG16810746 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid civil penalties, reasonable attorney fees and costs under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Check 'n Go is a consumer financial company operating in Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, and Idaho. The Company's line of business includes cash advances and installment loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Bainer, Esq. Nathan R. Yannone, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891 9800 Facsimile: (510) 891 7030 E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com nyannone@scalaw.com www.scalaw.com CHICAGO, IL: Firefighter Trainees Allege Harassment at Academy -------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Patch's Amie Schaenzer, citing ABC 7 Chicago, reports that the city's human resources department and fire department are investigating claims from female firefighter candidates that feces was left in the woman's changing room at a training academy as an act of harassment, ABC 7 Chicago reports. The women found feces on a Chicago Fire Department sweatshirt and on a chair in the changing area while at the training academy. The 13 female African-American candidates were enrolled in the program after first being rejected when applying more than 20 years ago. Two class-action lawsuits alleging racial and gender discrimination have since allowed the women to enroll at the academy. Marni Willenson, an attorney for the female firefighter candidates, told ABC 7 Chicago the feces left behind in the changing room sent a message that they were not wanted in the training program. CHRISTINE HERENDEEN: M.D. Fla. Dismisses CadleRock Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: OILEDKIN GONZALEZ, Debtor. CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE L.P., Appellant, v. CHRISTINE HERENDEEN Chapter 7 Trustee, THOMAS A. LASH, and LASH & WILCOX, PL, Appellees, Case No. 8:15-cv-2129-T-33, Bankr. No. 8:12-bk-19213-KRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, CadleRock Joint Venture, L.P.'s appeal of the denial of its motion for the bankruptcy judge to recuse himself from the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. CadleRock filed a motion to reopen an adversary proceeding previously filed against it so that it could filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the Chrisine Herendeen, Chapter 7 Trustee for the debtor Oiledkin Gonzalez, and her special counsel Thomas A. Lash, and Lash & Wilcox, PL "violated federal and state laws by engaging in a pattern of wrongful conduct through the filing of frivolous lawsuits asserting Consumer Protection Laws claims against CadleRock and other creditors." The motion was denied by the bankruptcy court, ultimately holding that "CadleRock is not permitted to sue or seek damages from the trustee or her special counsel." The denial was affirmed on appeal. CadleRock filed a second motion to reopen the case for the purpose of filing a motion for sanctions against the Trustee and her special counsel. CadleRock also filed a motion to recuse Bankruptcy Judge K. Rodney May based on concerns that he might not be able to remain impartial and decide this matter solely on the merits. While Judge May granted the second motion to reopen the case, he denied the motion to recuse. CadleRock appelaed the order denying the motion to recuse. Judge Covington determined that the district court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal of the denial of the motion to recuse as a "final" judgment, order, or decree under 28 U.S.C. Section 158(a)(1). The judge also determined that the dispute is not appropriate for consideration on the basis of an interlocutory appeal. A full-text copy of Judge Covington's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/8tr7Xtfrom Leagle.com. Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P., Appellant, represented by Brendan Anthony McQuaid, Fergeson, Skipper, Shaw, Keyser, Baron & Tirabassi, PA & David S. Maglich, Fergeson, Skipper, Shaw, Keyser, Baron & Tirabassi, PA. Christine Herendeen, Trustee, represented by W. Todd Boyd -- tboyd@boydlawgroup.com -- Boyd, Richards, Parker & Colonnelli, PL. Thomas A. Lash, Interested Party, represented by Katherine Earle Yanes -- kyanes@kmf-law.com -- Kynes, Markman & Felman, PA. CITIMORTGAGE INC: "Kester" Suit Over Wrongful Foreclosure Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned David A. Kester, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CitiMortgage, Inc.; CR Title Services, Inc.; and Does 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, No. CV-15-00365-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.), Judge Neil V. Wake granted the defendants' motion to dismiss David Kester's amended class action complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Kester filed a putative class action on behalf of foreclosed homeowners for statutory damages under A.R.S. Section 33-420(A), which penalizes persons claiming an interest or lien in real property for recording a document "knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid . . ." Kester alleged that three documents relating to the trustee's sale of his house were recorded in violation of the statute because they were acknowledged before a notary whose commission had been revoked ten days earlier. Kester also alleged that this defect in acknowledgment affected hundreds or perhaps thousands of other documents. Judge Wake pointed out that A.R.S. Section 33-420(A) requires materiality for a penalty. However, the judge found that the acknowledgment defect in the documents relating to the trustee's sale of Kester's property was immaterial to Kester as it could not have affected his choice of action as the owner/trustor. Further, Judge Wake also found that, even apart from the immateriality to the plaintiff of the acknowledgment defect, the acknowledgments were fully validated under the governing recording statutes and the Deed of Trust Act after having been recorded for one year and when the property passed to a purchaser for value and without notice. A full-text copy of Judge Wake's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/8NuWfGfrom Leagle.com. David A Kester, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S Friedman -- afriedman@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, David N Lake, Law Offices of David N Lake & Patricia Nicole Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC. CitiMortgage Incorporated, CR Title Services Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Comstock -- ccomstock@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Lauren Elliott Stine, Quarles & Brady LLP, Lucia Nale -- lnale@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Thomas V Panoff -- tpanoff@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP. CONAIR CORP: Bid to Decertify Nationwide Class Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Roger T. Benitez granted in part the defendant's motion to decertify the nationwide class action in the case captioned CYNTHIA L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-1901-BEN (RBB) (S.D. Cal.). The case arose from an alleged defect in Conair Corporation's Model 259 and 279 hair dryers. On November 12, 2015, a nationwide class was certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) for implied warranty claims under common law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Conair, however, argued that the nationwide class must be decertified because the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) cannot be satisfied, particularly because California law cannot be applied to the entire class, and common questions do not predominate due to the material differences in state laws. Judge Benitez found that the Conair has met its burden of showing the various laws throughout the states and how they materially differ from each other. The judge also found that each state has a valid and important interest in applying its own law to this case and, in determining which law to apply, that each state's law would seem to be equally impaired if not applied. As such, the judge concluded that Conair has met its burden showing that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are not met. However, Conair did not raise any arguments to decertify the nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(2). Thus, Judge Benitez denied Conair's motion to the extent it seeks to decertify the nationwide 23(b)(2) class. A full-text copy of Judge Benitez's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/zbfqgdfrom Leagle.com. Cynthia L Czuchaj, Angelique Mundy, Barbara McConnell, Patricia Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Isam C Khoury -- jkhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff Geraci -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar & Chase, Katherine J Odenbreit, Odenbreit Law, APC, Michael D Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jennifer Lynn Connor, Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Timothy D Cohelan -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer. Conair Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan Donald Saba -- rsaba@rosensaba.com -- Rosen Saba LLP & Momo Emily Takahashi -- mtakahashi@rosensaba.com -- Rosen Saba LLP. COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Won't Decertify Class in "Parish" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Z. Lee denied the motion filed by the defendants to decertify the class in the case captioned MICHAEL PARISH, CURTIS L. OATS, LEILA KHOURY, SEAN DRISCOLL, CARLA LOFTON, ROY CLEAVES, LISA BROWN, DAN TAYLOR, DEAN MILLER, KEVIN SANDERS, STACEY CLARK and CARLOTTE WILSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY and COOK COUNTY, Defendants, No. 07 C 4369 (N.D. Ill.). In August 2007, a class action was brought against the Sheriff of Cook County and Cook County alleging that Cook County Jail (CCJ) has policies and practices of deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs in violation of their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly certified a class of "all persons confined at the Cook County Jail on and after August 3, 2005 who provided notice that he or she had been taking prescription medication for a serious health need and who was not provided with appropriate medication within 24 hours thereafter." After the parties conducted and completed fact and expert discovery, the defendants moved to decertify the class arguing that Judge Kennelly erred in certifying the class and that certain facts revealed during discovery require decertification. Judge Lee, to whom the case was reassigned after discovery, concluded that there are no materially changed or clarified circumstances or changes in the law requiring decertification. The judge further stated that he does not have a strong and reasonable conviction that Judge Kennelly's ruling was incorrect. A full-text copy of Judge Lee's March 31, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/Qc8deMfrom Leagle.com. Michael Parish, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Gerard Morrissey, Thomas G. Morrissey, Joel A. Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C., Kenneth N Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C. & Patrick William Morrissey, Thomas G. Morrissey, Ltd.. Curtis L. Oats, Leila Khoury, Sean Driscoll, Carla Lofton, Roy Cleaves, Lisa Brown, Dan Taylor, Dean Miller, Stacey Clark, Kevin Sanders, Carlotte Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel A. Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C. & Kenneth N Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C.. Sheriff of Cook County, Cook County, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Fahlgren, State's Attorney of Cook County, Francis J. Catania, Cook County State's Attorney &Andrew Joseph Creighton, Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney of Cook County. CRYPTSY: Placed Under Receivership Amid Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- DCEBrief reports that Cryptsy has been placed into receivership by a Florida Court, as the class action lawsuit against the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange continues. The court froze the exchange's assets and appointed James Sallah to serve as its designated monitor, with administrative control over all assets. Mr. Sallah will also be responsible for management of Cryptsy's operating company, Project Investors. As part of its order, the court suspended the powers of Cryptsy's officers, agents, and employees except as may be later authorized by the designated Receiver. This action empowers Mr. Sallah to subpoena company information, including more than three years worth of accounting data. The order directs that he report on the exchange's viability and offer his recommendations within thirty days from taking receivership. CVS: Faces Class Action Over Advanced Eye Health Product -------------------------------------------------------- Colman M. Herman, writing for Boston Globe, reports that in the supermarket, consumers often pick store-brand products as less expensive alternatives to name brands. When it comes to prescription drugs, insurers require generics when available. The rationale: You can get essentially the same product for less. But sometimes there are significant differences with potentially adverse health consequences. Consider what happened to G. Dana MacDonald. The 91-year-old Belmont resident has an eye disease called age-related macular degeneration. His ophthalmologist prescribed a product from Bausch + Lomb called PreserVision AREDS2, a nutritional supplement proven in government clinical trials to slow the progression of his disease, which often leads to blindness. In 2014, Mr. MacDonald switched to CVS's Advanced Eye Health because it was half the price and claimed on its label to be "comparable to ongoing study formula in AREDS2." Just how comparable it was is a matter of dispute -- and at least one lawsuit. Age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, blurs the sharp central vision, which allows us to see objects that are straight ahead. It accounts for more than 50 percent of all blindness in the United States, according to the National Eye Institute. At the beginning of the last decade, a clinical trial conducted by the institute, called the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), determined that a high-dose combination of five nutrients (vitamins C and E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper) could reduce the risk of severe vision loss by 25 percent for many people with the disease. In 2006, a follow-up study, AREDS2, began to examine a formula that substituted lutein and zeaxanthin for the beta-carotene, which is associated with a higher risk of lung cancer in smokers. The new formula worked just as well, according to findings released in 2013. To capitalize on the success of an earlier version of PreserVision, CVS introduced Advanced Eye Health in 2012, before the second study was published. The front of the package carried the claim about being "comparable" to the formula being studied in AREDS2 by the National Eye Institute. But the CVS product, which the company placed on the shelf right next to the PreserVision AREDS2 after it was introduced in 2013, was much different. It did not contain four of the six proven nutrients being studied by AREDS2: vitamin C, vitamin E, zinc, and copper. The CVS product contained the lutein and the zeaxanthin, plus omega-3 fatty acids, which the AREDS2 study ultimately found to be ineffective in slowing the progression of macular degeneration. "Clearly it was very misleading," said Dr. Jorge Arroyo, an ophthalmologist who treats macular degeneration at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. "Patients who took the CVS product could have a 25 percent higher risk of their macular degeneration progressing and losing vision." "The CVS version was not subject to rigorous clinical testing," said Dr. Ingrid Scott, a professor of ophthalmology at the Pennsylvania State College of Medicine who has written about formulations that do not adhere to the AREDS requirements. Dr. Emily Chew, the physician at the National Eye Institute who headed the AREDS2 study, would not comment directly on the CVS product. "I can't vouch for other formulations," she said. "We do know that the AREDS2 is what we worked on and that's what we recommend." Alleging unfair and deceptive marketing and labeling practices, the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C., and Boston class-action lawyer John Roddy -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- of the firm Bailey & Glasser filed a lawsuit last year in California against CVS. CVS, based in Woonsocket, R.I., says there is nothing wrong with the way it marketed its product. "When our Advanced Eye Health product was launched in July 2012, AREDS2 was ongoing," said Michael DeAngelis, director of communications for CVS Health in a written statement. "[It] was formulated with the same nutrients that were the primary focus of the study. We did subsequently remove the comparison statement from the product until the study finished and the results were released." Dr. Chew, the chief investigator in the AREDS2 study, said the study tested only pills that combined the proven ingredients with the new ones, and never tested just the three ingredients in the CVS formula in isolation. While CVS said it changed its packaging, the older box could still be found on some store shelves at least until January 2015 -- 21 months after the AREDS2 study results were published online. Mr. MacDonald, the Belmont senior with macular degeneration who took the CVS product, was disturbed by what happened to him. "I was very upset when I realized that I wasn't taking the formula my doctor prescribed, and I told CVS that," he said. In a letter to CVS, MacDonald pointedly asked: "How can a company that appears to project a quality reputation as you do decide to sell such a contradictive product? It is not only dishonest, it convinces regular customers like myself to never purchase CVS store brands again." In response, CVS gave Mr. MacDonald an explanation and a $20 CVS gift card "as a token of our appreciation for bringing this matter to our attention." Since then CVS has changed the ingredients and the packaging a number of times. According the label, it has 75 percent less zinc than the brand name and it now says "Compare vs. PreserVision AREDS2 Formula." Mr. Roddy, the Boston attorney who is one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the California lawsuit against CVS, said that he has had a number of conversations with CVS about resolving the lawsuit. "If we can't reach consensus soon, we will ask the court to certify a class of all Advanced Eye Health purchasers," he said. DATA CHECK: Faces " Bailey" Suit in E.D. Cal., Fresno --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Data Check of Nevada, LLC. The case is captioned Toni Bailey and Veronica Mozi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Data Check of Nevada, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00510-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal., Fresno, April 8, 2015). The assigned Judge is Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill. The Data Check of Nevada is a Nevada Domestic limited liability company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com DENVER, CO: Trial Scheduled in Hiring Discrimination Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Todd, writing for CBS Denver, reports that a class action lawsuit nearly a decade in the making against the City and County of Denver was scheduled to go to trial on April 11. The 912 plaintiffs say the city used a discriminatory test during the hiring process around 2007 and 2008. "What that test did was eliminate Hispanics and blacks almost twice as many as it did whites and therefore it was racially discriminatory," said Kenneth Padilla, who is representing the plaintiffs in this case. The AccuPlacer/WritePlacer test was created by The College Board and is most commonly used to determine incoming freshman's English level placement. "This test was not validated. That means it didn't have anything to do with job performance. If you passed the test it didn't mean you would do better at the job," said Mr. Padilla. The case says more than 40 percent of Hispanics and blacks applying for jobs with Denver failed the test while only 25 percent of whites failed. The test was administered for a variety of jobs from animal control to office assistants. "Once they failed they were out, could not be considered (for a job). They were told, 'You failed the test, pick up your things and leave,'" Mr. Padilla said. In 2008 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined discrimination had taken place. "I have considered all the evidence obtained during the investigation and find that there is reasonable cause to believe that there is a violation of Title VII in that respondent failed to conduct a validity test on the AccuPlacer test used in its employment process," said Nancy Sienko, the Field Office Director for the EEOC. "As a result, a statistical analysis revealed responded discriminated against black applicants. Furthermore, the statistical analysis also revealed that the above-mentioned test discriminated against Hispanic/Latino male applicants." City Attorney Scott Martinez told CBS4, "Our policy is not to comment on pending litigation where we are a party, especially on the eve of trial, to respect the integrity of the judicial process." "Our expert has estimated the damages as $18.3 million," Mr. Padilla said. In the most recent defendant's trial brief the litigators for the city argued that the plaintiff's request for damages is grossly overestimated. "While in hindsight it may be easy to call a reading comprehension test given to high school students racist, there was no evidence that the city was aware that the test had not been validated for employment purposes, and once it was discovered, the city immediately discontinued its use," the brief said. The city also argues that passing the test would not have guaranteed employment or promotion for the plaintiffs. "If they would have had a job, a good paying job when we were in the throes of a recession and all those years they lost income, they lost benefits," Mr. Padilla said. "We are seeking justice for these individuals." DIGNITY HEALTH: "Brock" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ Marcella Brock & Adenike Fajemisin, as individuals, andon behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dignity Health, a California corporation, Trustaff, an Ohio corporation, Trustaff Management, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Trustaff Healthcare Solutions, a California limited liability company, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC616408 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, April 7, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages and meal and break period pay, under the Labor Code. Dignity Health owns and operates healthcare facilities in California, Arizona, and Nevada. The company provides inpatient, outpatient, sub-acute, and home healthcare services, as well as physician services through Dignity Health Medical Foundation and other affiliated medical groups. It also offers occupational health and urgent care services. The company was formerly known as Catholic Healthcare West and changed its name to Dignity Health in January 2012. Dignity Health was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Ahdoot, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JASON D. AHDOOT 16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (310) 359 8340 Facsimile: (310) 359 0290 E-mail: jason@ahdootlaw.com DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Wilson" Suit in Southern Dist. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Direct Energy Services, LLC. The case is captioned Patricia Wilson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Direct Energy Services, LLC, dba Direct Energy, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00454-WOB (S.D. Ohio, April 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. William O. Bertelsman. Direct Energy Service offers electricity supply services. The company also provides home maintenance and repair services that include plumbing, heating, cooling, appliance repair, and electrical services. Additionally, it operates crude oil and liquid pipeline systems and distributes natural gas to industrial, commercial, and residential customers. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. As of January 28, 2002, Direct Energy Service LLC operates as a subsidiary of Centrica PLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle A. Cheek, Esq. SHEA, COFFEY & HARTMANN 119 W. Central Pkwy 300 Court Index Building Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621 8333 E-mail: mcheek@shea-associates.com DIRECTV LLC: Loses Arbitration Bid in "Renteria-Camacho" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ROLANDO RENTERIA-CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, INC. and DIRECTV, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action. No. 14- 2529-CM (D. Kan.), Judge Carlos Murguia denied the defendants' motion to compel the plaintiff's claims to arbitration. Rolando Renteria-Camacho brought a suit against DirecTV, Inc. and DirecTV, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), arising from his work as a techician from March 2009 to July 2011. DirecTV filed a motion to compel arbitration, but Renteria-Camacho argued that DirecTV has waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreement that he had previously signed as a condition of his employment with DirecTV. Judge Murguia held that DirecTV's failure to compel arbitration in two prior lawsuits in which Renteria-Camacho was a party plaintiff, and in which DirecTV knew or should have known that it had an arbitration agreement with the plaintiff, leads the court to a finding that DirecTV waived its right to enforce arbitration. The judge found that DirecTV's actions were inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and instead demonstrated an intent to litigate, and the facts also supported a conclusion that the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked. A full-text copy of Judge Murguia's March 30, 2016 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/aeiZbqfrom Leagle.com. Rolando Renteria-Camacho, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear -- lear@learwerts.com -- Lear Werts LLP, pro hac vice, George A. Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Ryan D. O'Dell, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Todd C. Werts -- werts@learwerts.com -- Lear Werts LLP. Directv, Inc., Directv, LLC, Defendant, represented by Patricia J. Martin -- pmartin@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, pro hac vice & Robert A. Sheffield -- rsheffield@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. DNTW CHARTERED: S.D.N.Y. Court Tosses Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned, In re DNTW CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 13 Civ. 4632 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs purchased shares of Subaye, Inc. and allege that the Company's auditor -- Defendant DNTW Chartered Accountants, LLP -- "knowingly turned a blind eye and deliberately disregarded obvious fraud at Subaye, and "issued materially false and misleading 'clean' audit reports for Subaye's fiscal year 2009 and 2010 financial statements. In May 2013, the SEC brought an enforcement proceeding against Subaye and Crane alleging securities fraud. The SEC concluded that (1) Subaye had no verifiable assets; (2) the people Subaye claimed as customers had no such relationship with it; (3) Subaye's offices were empty; and (4) Subaye was "'an imaginary business." Plaintiffs filed the action on July 3, 2013. On September 3, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to consolidate a related action with the instant action and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Defendants did not oppose consolidation; accordingly, the Court ordered the two cases consolidated for all purposes, and permitted Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have still not sufficiently alleged scienter under Section 10(b), and that because the Section 10(b) claim fails, the control person claim under Section 20(a) must also be dismissed. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/94mkb0from Leagle.com, Judge Gardephe concluded that the Amended Complaint contains no substantial new allegations concerning Defendants' motive and opportunity to perpetrate fraud and that Plaintiffs have not adequately pled a violation of the securities laws. Subaye Group is represented by Phillip C. Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. Defendants are represented by Charles J. Nerko, Esq. -- cherko@vedderprice.com -- and John H. Eickemeyer, Esq. -- jeickermeyer@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE P.C. DR. PEPPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that an overtime pay laws class action was recently launched in the state of California alleging that a bottler of popular soft drinks incorrectly classified its Quality Supervisors as exempt from qualifying for overtime pay. It is also alleged that meal and rest periods, mandated under California labor law, were not provided. Lead plaintiff in the case is Ronald Robinson, while the defendants are Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. and The American Bottling Company. Allegations put forward in the unpaid overtime lawsuit include the frequent undertaking of menial tasks that would be considered beneath the station of a Quality Supervisor, a position as such thought to be a management position and thus exempt from overtime pay. However, it is alleged the plaintiff has little opportunity to perform tasks that would be considered appropriate activity for an exempt, supervisory or management role. To that end, the California overtime lawsuit alleges the plaintiff undertook tasks that included, but may not have been limited to, entering daily inventory transactions, reviewing inventory counts on a daily basis, providing feedback of transaction errors to Defendant's managers, tracking daily production schedules, reporting material shortages, conducting physical inventory counts, compiling requests for materials, and inspecting non- conforming product and raw materials in accordance with the employer's company-wide policies. Thus, the lawsuit holds that individuals having attained the title of Quality Supervisor should qualify for overtime pay under overtime pay laws observed by the State of California, given that in the plaintiff's view the employees were "managers in name only" resulting from the frequency and degree of non-exempt tasks. Many employers have made attempts to skirt around overtime exemption laws by promoting employees to so-called management positions, while the majority of tasks performed by the newly appointed managers differ little from tasks routinely performed by hourly workers. It is also mandated under California law that employees are provided with paid rest breaks and a meal period. If the rest breaks and meal period are not available to the employee and, as a result, an employee is required to work through the legally mandated breaks, then overtime pay should be provided for the extra work performed beyond eight hours in a given workday or 40 hours in a given week. The overtime laws class action is Ronald Robinson et al v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. and The American Bottling Company Corp., Case No. CIVDS1602307, filed February 16 of this year in the Superior Court for the State of California. DRAFTKINGS: Mandated to Halt Paid Daily Fantasy Sports Contests --------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Hu, writing for WBRC, reports that less than five months after Birmingham lawyers sued daily fantasy sports websites seeking a court order that the sites constituted illegal gambling, Attorney General Luther Strange issued cease and desist letters to DraftKings and FanDuel mandating that the companies stop "offering paid daily fantasy sports contests in Alabama" by May 1, 2016. "We're happy to see Attorney General Strange has come along some 6 months later and agreed with us," said Lew Garrison, one of the attorneys suing the websites. "When the DraftKings and FanDuel were starting to get popular, and I would see it on ESPN every Sunday, it would just make me sick because it was just so much about gambling and just picking fantasy leagues as opposed to watching the games on TV. And then we studied it a little bit more and then we realized, this is just plain old gambling," Mr. Garrison said. People responded on social media decrying Mr. Strange's decision. One person wrote, "Stop legislating morality. If people want to gamble let them. I'm [fine] with regulating everything specifically daily fantasy sports." Another seemed to believe it was no different than other prevalent community activities. "So no more church raffles or kids selling chances to raise money for their school? I mean I'd hate to commit a crime by handing over MY money on a chance to win something." "The results of paid daily fantasy sports contests depend to a large degree on chance," Strange explained in a statement. "This is the very definition of gambling under Alabama law." Mr. Garrison's lawsuit has been moved to Boston and assigned to a judge who will hear around two dozen other lawsuits from around the country also suing the website companies. If successful, the Alabama class action could recover all money paid by every person in Alabama to play daily fantasy sports in the state. "There is a remedy for people who have unwittingly paid to play this game and lost money as a result," said Mr. Garrison. "And that's what we said back in November in this lawsuit, and now the attorney general has agreed." DraftKings has no comment at this time about Mr. Strange's cease and desist letter. When contacted in November about the lawsuit, a spokesperson explained the company cannot comment on litigation. A spokesperson for FanDuel declined to comment in November on the litigation and did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Mr. Strange's cease and desist letter. ELLIS TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Watson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Ellis Transportation Administration, LLC. The case is captioned Ellis Watson, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Ellis Transportation Service, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Ellis Transportation Administration, LLC, Albert Hoyte, Weslyn Perry, Dave Forbes, Suzette Tulloch Forbes, Veronica C. Pancham, and Collette Stephens Louison, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01715-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, April 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan. Ellis Transportation is a bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Lawrenceburg, Kentucky. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Jacob Falcon, Esq. JACOBSON & FALCON LLP 31 East 32nd Street, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 203 3255 Facsimile: (212) 203 3215 E-mail: ken@jfllp.com EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Physicians Healthsource May Conduct Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS SERVICES CO., et al., Defendants, No. 4:15-CV-664 JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and stayed the defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment. Physicians Healthsource, Inc. sought statutory damages as well as injunctive relief against Express Scripts Services Co., alleging that Express Scripts faxed unsolicited facsimiles without the required opt-out notice ot Physicians Healthsource and more than 40 other recipients, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Express Scripts argued that the plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because the plaintiff did not allege enough facts to adequately allege who sent the fax or that Express Scripts had any connection with the fax. Alternatively, Express Scripts sought summary judgment in its favor based on the undisputed fact that it had nothing to do with the fax, as neither TRICARE nor Health Net is an Express Scripts entity. Judge Ross denied Express Scripts' motion to dismiss, finding that the facts alleged by Physicians Healthcare, when accepted as true, plausibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the TCPA. The judge also found that Express Scripts prematurely filed its motion for summary judgment before discovery was conducted. Thus, Judge Ross stayed briefing on Express Scripts' motion to allow Physicians Healthsource to conduct limited discovery. A full-text copy of Judge Ross's March 30, 2016 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/yLFVOEfrom Leagle.com. Physicians Healthsource Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA, Matthew Elton Stubbs -- mstubbs@mrjlaw.com -- MONTGOMERY AND RENNIE, pro hac vice, Max G. Margulis, MARGULIS LAW GROUP & Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA. Express Scripts Services Company, Express Scripts Pharmacy Inc., Express Scripts, Inc., Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts Pharmaceutical Procurement Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher A. Smith -- chris.smith@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP, Jason Husgen -- jason.husgen@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP & Matthew D. Knepper -- matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP. FANDUEL INC: Violated CLRA UCL, & UBP, "Sobel" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Lee Sobel, as an individual and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FanDuel Inc., a Delaware Corporation doing business in California; and Does 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC616436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 8, 2016), seeks restitution and disgorgement of all money obtained from Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' unfair business practices; an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing such practices; corrective advertising; and all other relief, pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), The Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the Unlawful Business Practices (UBP). On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff joined FanDuel and deposited $200 with FanDuel as part of a much advertised FanDuel promotion. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon FanDuel television advertisements, when he decided to signup for FanDuel audio play in the advertised FanDuel contests. FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is based in New York, New York with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. AmyT. Wootton, Esq. HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC 555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 533 4160 Facsimile: (213) 533 4167 E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com awootton@hamnerlaw.com FARMERS INSURANCE: July 2017 Trial Scheduled in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Alison Noon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that four weeks after the stricter California law took effect Jan. 1, consumer and employment attorney Lori Andrus included it in a major class-action lawsuit that could put the measure on trial for the first time in July 2017. Ms. Andrus represents more than 300 women nationwide who argue that they've been systematically underpaid by their employer, Farmers Insurance. "We just rack our brains and say 'Why is this gap still there? Why is it so stubborn?'" Ms. Andrus said. "In my view the answer is that companies, what they've been doing, is not enough." Just as California businesses begin to implement a law requiring equal pay for workers regardless of their gender, already the toughest of its kind in the nation, a state lawmaker is seeking to expand it to protect employees from racial discrimination. The proposal by Sen. Isadore Hall would build on California's existing fair pay law by adding "race or ethnicity" to the requirement that employers justify any pay discrepancies between men and women who do "substantially similar" work. The current law, passed last year, allows employees to openly discuss their compensation and challenge pay gaps between men and women. Sen. Hall's proposal, scheduled to be heard in committee for the first time on April 13, would permit workers to challenge racially disparate pay, too. The latest proposal takes the Democratically dominated state into uncharted legal territory. No state or federal employment law has forced employers to prove they're not underpaying workers based on any characteristic other than their sex. "No one should be paid less than what they're worth and no one should be discriminated against because of the hue of their skin or their gender," said Sen. Hall, a Democrat. "This is the most robust racial equality bill in the nation." Still, some leading voices on pay inequality are hesitant to push too much too soon on businesses that embraced the 2015 update but fought to exclude race and ethnicity from it. Racial discrimination was strategically left out of that law to ensure its passage, leaving the fate of Hall's proposal uncertain. "The goal is to get to a place where we're all paid fairly for our work," said Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, author of last year's fair pay legislation. "I don't know if we can accomplish that all at once." While studies point to persistent pay discrimination based on gender, data signifying a racial pay gap includes numerous underlying variables that experts say may obscure the true disparity. "There is plenty of evidence to show women of color are facing lower pay for many reasons and one of those reasons is the combination of race and gender," said Jennifer Reisch, legal director at Equal Rights Advocates, a civil rights nonprofit that helped craft California's 2015 law. "But a lot of it is explained by other factors as well." Women comprise about 60 percent of California workers earning minimum wage or less, according to a review of federal labor statistics by the National Women's Law Center. The majority of those women are not white. Compared to their non-Hispanic, white male counterparts in California, Latinas made 43 cents to every dollar, Native American women made 50 cents, black women made 63 cents and Asian American women made 72 cents in 2014, according to NWLC's study of U.S. Census Bureau surveys. Across the country, white women make about 77 percent of what white men make. Donna Rutter, a California employment attorney, said there's no reason not to include race and ethnicity in the pay law, but warned it may lead to the addition of many other characteristics like disability, age and religion. That would make it increasingly difficult for employers to monitor workers' traits. After the 2015 law was passed, tech giants Apple, Intel and Salesforce conducted internal audits to identify pay gaps between men and women. Salesforce said it found gender pay discrepancies totaling nearly $3 million and raised pay for more than 1,000 employees. "It's caused employers who want to engage in best practices to do that analysis," Ms. Rutter said. FELTEX: Appeal Court Hears Arguments in Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Hamis Rutherford, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that Feltex's 2004 prospectus omitted key disclosures which could have acted as a warning to prudent investors, a class action against the company's former directors, owners and sale managers claims. On April 11 the Court of Appeal heard the first arguments of lawyers representing Eric Houghton, the lead plaintiff in class action on behalf of around 3600 people who invested in the carpet maker. Little over two years after its 2004 initial public offering (IPO), the company collapsed, wiping out the $250 million which thousands of shareholders injected into the company. In 2014 the High Court ruled that while there was "justification" for criticisms of the content of the company's prospectus, these did not meet the tests which would trigger liability under the Securities Act. But Colin Carruthers QC, appearing on behalf of Houghton and other investors, argued that Justice Robert Dobson applied a test which was too high and "undermined the nature of the obligation that the case has recognized". The test under the Securities Act, was that the contents of the prospectus contained untruths which would influence "prudent, but non-expert investors" Mr. Carruthers said. According to the appellants, the prospectus represented "much more of a marketing document" than an outline of the disclosures that investors would have needed, Mr. Carruthers said. The presentation could have given investors greater confidence that the projections in the document would be met. In the first day of what is expected to be at least four days of arguments, Mr. Carruthers said the prospectus ignored adverse trends which had been presented to the board of directors before the flotation, showing the closing months of the 2003-04 financial year were going to be "difficult". Despite concerns about sales in April and May, the prospectus projected an increase in sales equivalent to an extra 3.8 per cent in revenue. "It is not a reasonable assumption to project an increase in sales volume when the trend is down," Mr. Carruthers said. The prospectus also did not disclose that expensive machinery the company had purchased to manufacture woollen carpet was not working, or the extent to which its revenue in Australia was derived from a government grant, Mr. Carruthers told the court. The case was expected to continue until at least April 14. FIRST STUDENT: Faces "Terrell" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Missouri Law --------------------------------------------------------------- ESSIE TERRELL, et. al v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT LLC, and FIRST STUDENT, INC., Case: 4:16-cv-00481 (E.D. Mo., April 7, 2016), seeks recovery of "unpaid" compensation and overtime compensation and related penalties and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and Missouri law. Defendant First Student is a nationwide provider of student bus transportation with operations in at least 42 different states. Defendant First Student operates an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert F. Flynn, Esq. THE FLYNN LAW FIRM, P.C. 1150 Grand Blvd., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64106-2303 Phone: (816) 283-3400 Fax: (913) 782-1383 E-mail: Robert@TheFlynnLawFirm.com - and - Patrick T. Cronin, Esq. Steven Berkowitz, Esq. CRONIN & BERKOWITZ 10000 Lincoln Drive East, Ste. 202 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 350-6200 Fax: (856) 751-1677 E-mail: pcronin@croninmusto.LLB1.com sberkowitz@berkpc.com FOWLER PACKING: Plaintiffs Must Answers Deposition Questions ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendant's motion to compel answers to deposition questions in the case captioned, BEATRIZ ALDAPA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOWLER PACKING COMPANY INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-00420-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.). The complaint was filed on March 17, 2015. Plaintiffs Beatriz Aldapa and Elmer Avalos raise claims on behalf of a proposed class of non-exempt agricultural employees of Defendants Fowler Packing Company Inc., AG Force LLC, and Fowler Marketing International LLC who performed uncompensated work in Defendants' fields in or near Fresno County within the past four years, excluding irrigators, tractor drivers, and swampers. Plaintiffs raise nine causes of action: 1) for violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act; 2) for failure to provide rest periods; 3) for failure to pay all wages owed under established employment contracts; 4) for failing to pay overtime; 5) for failing to pay minimum wages; 6) for failing to pay waiting time penalties; 7) for failing to provide tools necessary to the performance of a job and failing to provide reimbursement for tool expenses; 8) for violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200; and 9) for failing to keep accurate statements on hours worked and wages earned. The Defendants filed a motion to compel further responses at Plaintiffs' depositions. The hearing on the matter took place on March 16, 2016. Mario Martinez and Erica Deutsch appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Howard Sagaser and Ian Wieland appeared on behalf of Defendants. The discovery dispute concerns two main discovery issues: 1) the refusal by Plaintiffs' counsel to allow Plaintiffs Elmer Avalos and Beatriz Aldapa to answer questions during their depositions regarding the identities of putative class members who attended meetings with Plaintiffs' counsel; and 2) Defendants' request to reopen Mr. Avalos's deposition because Mr. Avalos made changes to his deposition transcript after review. In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/Pq8Khl from Leagle.com, Judge Boone found that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to the identities of the putative class members who met with class counsel and Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs' preemption argument is inapposite because the dispute involves discovery in a federal class action lawsuit for wage and hour violations. The Court ordered that (a) Mr. Avalos's deposition is to be reopened because of the changes made to the deposition transcript; and (b) Ms. Aldapa and Mr. Avalos must answer questions at their depositions regarding the identities of people who met with Plaintiffs' counsel at meetings regarding the lawsuit. The Court directed the Defendants to file a motion for attorney's fees within 14 days of the date of service of the order. Plaintiffs are represented by Erica Deutsch, Esq. -- edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- and Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq. -- igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- BUSH GOTTLIEB & Mario Martinez, Esq. -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC Fowler Packing Company, Inc. is represented by: Howard A. Sagaser, Esq. Ian Blade Wieland, Esq. SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND, PC 7550 N Palm Ave., Suite 100 Fresno, CA 93711 Tel: (559) 421-7000 FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Seeks More Information on Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge said he wants more information before he'll approve a class-action settlement stemming from a 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the region's Elk River drinking water supply. The case involves Kanawha Valley residents and businesses and two former top officials from Freedom Industries. U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver told lawyers in the case on April 8 that he wants more details about the finances of one of the former Freedom officials -- longtime company co-owner Dennis Farrell, The Charleston Gazette-Mail reported. The judge also wants more details about whether Mr. Farrell and former Freedom President Gary Southern remain targeted in any other lawsuits that also could be settled. The judge told the attorneys to get back to him about those matters by May 13. Under the proposed settlement, Mr. Southern would pay $350,000 and Farrell $50,000 to the class of residents represented in the case. The money would be paid into a court account, and then used only "to benefit the class" after some later order from Judge Copenhaver. Exact plans for the money have not been made clear in court documents, hearings or a public notice to the class members. In arguing for approval of the deal, lawyers for the residents had said one reason to do so was that Messrs. Southern and Farrell "are unlikely to be able to pay the large compensatory damage award" that could be assessed if the case went to trial. Kevin Thompson, a lawyer for the residents and businesses, had said in a court filing that Mr. Southern -- who would not share his financial records with the plaintiffs -- is in a "relatively secure financial position," but that his "day to day responsibilities" for the operation of the Elk River facility "appeared limited," compared to Farrell and "others who worked at the site daily." Mr. Thompson said Mr. Farrell's financial position "was utterly decimated" by the spill and by his need to pay criminal defense lawyers and respond to civil cases filed after the incident. The settlements with Messrs. Southern and Farrell also involved both men giving up their effort to have Freedom's insurance company fund their legal costs in lawsuits and criminal cases, a move that allowed more than $3 million to be obtained from AIG Insurance for use in paying leak claims in Freedom's bankruptcy and on the cleanup of the company's Etowah River Terminal on the Elk, where the spill occurred. Mr. Thompson said the settlement with Southern and Farrell was needed to ensure a speedy and appropriate cleanup of the Freedom site. Judge Copenhaver said civil cases against Southern and Farrell are likely strong, given that each man pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to the spill. Messrs. Southern and Farrell are currently incarcerated, serving 30-day sentences ordered by U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston. Judge Copenhaver, though, said he had seen "no evidence" to support the claims about Farrell's finances being in such bad shape. Mike Carey, Mr. Farrell's lawyer, told the judge that Mr. Farrell made about $3 million from the sale in December 2014 of Freedom's operations to Chemstream, a Pennsylvania company that owned the site of the spill the following month. He said Mr. Farrell owed about $1 million in tax debt, and while he had been making $300,000 a year, he was unable to get other work after the spill. Mr. Carey said legal work for Mr. Farrell has run through most of "several hundred thousand dollars" in retainer. He said Mr. Farrell can't afford ongoing legal expenses for civil cases, although he has some assets, such as cars and a home. Judge Copenhaver said he wants more documentation and answers about Mr. Farrell's finances. Also, the judge told Mr. Carey and Mr. Southern's lawyer, Bob Allen, to do more research to see what other spill lawsuits the men had been named in and see if those potentially could be settled. GARMIN INTERNATIONAL: "Meyers" Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------- Judge Carlos Murguia granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissed the case captioned BRIAN MEYERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-2416-CM-GLR (D. Kan.). Brian Meyers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought an action against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin U.S.A., Inc. arising from his purchase of a Garmin NUVI 2460 LMT GPS device from J&R Music and Computer World, which is an authorized dealer of defendants. The defendants sought summary judgment on Meyer's claims for deceptive practices (misrepresentations and omissions) and unconscionability under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) (Counts II and III); breach of implied and express warranties (Counts IV and VI); and unjust enrichment (Count V). Meyers opposed summary judgment only on Count II -- his willful omission claim under the KCPA -- alleging only that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by willfully omitting material information about the NUVI 2460 before his purchase. As there was no opposition to the grant of summary judgment on the remaining counts, Judge Murguia granted the defendants' motion as to Counts III, IV, V, and VI. Judge Murguia found that Meyers' purchase of the NUVI 2460 was not a consumer transaction within the state of Kansas. The judge therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on Meyers' KCPA willful omission claim (Count II). Meyers' motion for class certification was also denied as moot, given that Meyers has abandoned his warranty claims and cannot maintain his only remaining claim under the KCPA. A full-text copy of Judge Murguia's March 30, 2016 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/gtXshCfrom Leagle.com. Brian Meyers, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F. Fata -- afata@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel O. Herrera -- dherrera@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Edward D. Robertson, III -- krobertson@bflawfirm.com -- Bartimus, Frickleton, and Robertson, James P. Frickleton -- jimf@bflawfirm.com -- Bartimus, Frickleton, and Robertson & Jennifer W. Sprengel -- jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice. Garmin International, Inc., Garmin U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes -- danh@germanmay.com -- German May PC, Kirk T. May -- kirkm@germanmay.com -- German May PC & William D. Beil -- billb@germanmay.com -- German May PC. GARRISON PROPERTY: Court Drops Other Defendants in "Cielo" ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Steven D. Merryday granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned TODD J. CIELO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GARRISON PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-2324-T-23TBM (M.D. Fla.). Todd J. Cielo and Cielo Sports & Family Chiropractic Centre, LLC initiated a class action in state court arising from Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company's breach of an insurance agreement. The plaintiffs, who are the assignees of an insured's claim against Garrison, argued that Garrison can limit reimbursement based on "Medicare fee schedules" for "personal injury protection" but not for "medical payments." The plaintiffs sued four insurance companies -- Garrison, the United Services Automobile Association, the USAA General Indemnity Company, and the USAA Casualty Insurance Company -- on behalf of those who received from any of the defendants only limited reimbursement for "medical payments" based on "Medicare fee schedules." Judge Merryday found that, while the complaint states a claim against Garrison, the plaintiffs failed to establish standing to sue any defendant other than Garrison. The plaintiffs failed to state any fact establishing an injury caused by the United States Automobile Association, the USAA General Indemnity Company, or the USAA Casualty Insurance Company. Judge Merryday also found that a class action is inappropriate to resolve the claim because the claims for damages will require a significant number of individualized inquiries, particularly as to the difference between the actual charges due under the Reasonable Amount Method of reimbursement and the reimbursements actually paid. The judge also found that a class action is inappropriate to resolve the plaintiff's claim for a declaratory jdugment and for a permanent injunction. A full-text copy of Judge Merryday's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/Bvcwsefrom Leagle.com. Todd J. Cielo, Cielo Sports & Family Chiropractic Centre, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christa L. Collins, Harmon Woods Parker & Abrunzo, P.A., Lauren A. Meksraitis-Elliott, Michael J. Meksraitis, Chartered & Kathryn Elizabeth Lee, Harmon Woods Parker & Abrunzo, P.A.. Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, United Services Automobile Association, USAA General Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Marcy Levine Aldrich -- marcy.aldrich@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Margaret Diane Mathews -- margaret.mathews@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Ross Elliot Linzer -- ross.linzer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP. GREENBAX ENTERPRISES: To Sell Properties Amid Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Post and Courier reports that that the parent of a fallen Charleston supermarket chain is embarking on a big real estate sale, as former employees are lining up in a class-action lawsuit to recoup millions in lost retirement benefits. Greenbax Enterprises, parent of Piggly Wiggly Carolina Co. Inc., was set to shed itself of 14 shopping centers in South Carolina and Georgia by April 12 o a Virginia company under revised financial terms, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Six Greenbax affiliates are selling the properties for $69 million, down from $71 million in cash offered in December. In addition to the cash payment, Greenbax will get 888,889 partnership common units in the Virginia Beach-based purchaser, Wheeler Real Estate Investment. Three local retail properties are changing hands in the deal: Folly Road Crossing on James Island, Ladson Crossing in Ladson and a Piggly Wiggly store in Moncks Corner. Piggly Wiggly Carolina sold off or shuttered many of its supermarkets in 2013 after its finances deteriorated. In February, two former employees sued the company and its top management in federal court to recoup millions of dollars in lost retirement benefits. They have alleged poor decisions and inaction by executives led to the ruin of one of the Lowcountry's most prominent retail businesses. The company and other defendants had requested and were granted more time to formally reply to the allegations based on the enormous complexity of the case. The two ex-workers, representing a group that could be larger than 1,000 people, said senior officials with the grocer and Greenbax enriched themselves while the value of the employee-owned stock plan plummeted by nearly 90 percent, from $88.7 million in 2008 to $9 million last year. The former workers who filed the case are seeking class-action status. More than 200 people have been added to the complaint as plaintiffs, according to an attorney with the law firm of Wyche PA. More are expected to join. Rapid rise Businesses owned by women are springing up in South Carolina at one of the fastest rates in the country, but the state lags in how many people they employ and how much money they bring in. That's the conclusion of a new report analyzing data from the Census Bureau. South Carolina is home to about 152,500 women- owned businesses, an increase of 53 percent from 2007, the sixth- fastest rate in the nation. But their combined revenue only grew 11 percent, ranking No. 43 nationally, according to the report commissioned by American Express OPEN. Altogether, they accounted for $15.7 billion in sales. Nationwide, businesses owned by women have been a bright spot in the economic recovery, said Julie Weeks, president of the consulting firm Womenable and an adviser to American Express. Start-up activity has been slow to pick up after the recession, but women-owned businesses have opened at a faster clip, she said. Product pitch Wal-Mart is cracking open the door to entrepreneurs who want to sell their "Made in the USA" products to the retail giant. The big "Open Call" takes place June 28 at the chain's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters. "We are opening our doors and making our buyers available to meet with suppliers with one goal in mind: buy more American products," said Cindi Marsiglio, vice president of U.S. sourcing and manufacturing. "From food to toys to apparel, and companies large and small from coast to coast, we want to make a deal with you for your U.S. made products." The company announced in 2013 a commitment to boost job creation and U.S. manufacturing by buying an additional $250 billion in products that support American jobs over 10 years. The deadline to register -- details are at walmart-jump.com -- is May 27. Wal-Mart is now carrying products from at least two Charleston- area companies under that effort. The giant retailer picked up seafood dips last year from Mount Pleasant-based Big T's Coastal Provisions and placed them in 1,000 East Coast stores with the goal eventually to place them in all 4,618 stores nationwide. Wal- Mart also recently started carrying North Charleston's Charleston Gourmet Burger sauces and marinades in stores in South Carolina and Georgia. Drought aid Small businesses and non-profits hurt by South Carolina's heat and drought have only about another month to apply for federal loans aimed at getting them back on their feet. The U.S. Small Business Administration is offering loans up to $2 million for businesses that need help keeping up to date on debt payments, bills and payroll because of the drought formally declared last May. The deadline to apply is May 9. Small businesses are charged 4 percent interest, and non-profits pay 2.625 percent, with terms up to 30 years. Businesses in every county in the state are eligible, but the Small Business Administration doesn't issue loans to farmers or ranchers. To apply, call 800-659-2955 or go to http://disasterloan.sba.gov/ela Distillery deal remixed It's round two for a Florida beverage company that's looking to invest in a North Charleston-based liquor maker. South Beach Spirits Inc. said it has amended its previous letter of intent to acquire a 50 percent equity interest in Striped Pig Distillery LLC. This time, it did not disclose the financial terms of the proposed deal. "The closing of the transaction is subject to the completion of due diligence, execution of definitive transaction documents between the parties and preparation of audited and unaudited financial statements for Striped Pig," South Beach said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Striped Pig operating partners Jim Craig, Todd Weiss, Johnny Pieper and Juliana Harless said in a statement that the investment would allow the business "to accelerate the growth of its brand and improve overall production efficiencies and capacities at the distillery." In late 2015, the Sunrise, Fla.-based company reported that it had planned to issue 750,000 shares of its penny stock to acquire a half of the local distillery, though a representative of Striped Pig later said the details of that filing were inaccurate. The original deal also was to include $300,000 in cash for working capital. Striped Pig is an artisanal producer of rum products, gin, vodka and other alcoholic products using local ingredients under its own name. The company also is a manufacturing contractor for other brands. The distillery began production in 2013 in a warehouse on Old School Drive. Shares of the Sunrise, Fla.-based South Beach Spirits trade on the over-the-counter market. They were priced at less than a penny on April 8. On approach It's another return flight for a national aerospace manufacturing summit that's been held in Charleston since 2013. Aviation Week publisher Penton and its SpeedNews Conferences division said the fourth annual event will be held in the Holy City once again May 3-4. The venue is Belmond Charleston Place. The agenda includes a statewide update on aerospace trends in South Carolina and a tour of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner final assembly plant in North Charleston. "The industry is watching the growth in this region of North America, arguably the fastest-growing regional concentration of aerospace and aviation companies in the world," said Steve Townes, chairman of SC Aerospace and CEO of Greenville-based investment firm Ranger Aerospace. The SpeedNews gathering is aimed at executives from major manufacturers and suppliers. Organizers said the sessions "are very much operational in nature, featuring speakers and panelists with tremendous hands-on manufacturing experience." Participating businesses include several South Carolina aerospace employers, including Boeing, GKN Aerospace, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and Toray Composites (America) Inc. GRUBHUB INC: Court Narrows "Tan" Driver Misclassification Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ANDREW TAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Andrew Tan and Raef Lawson sue Grub Hub Holdings Inc. and GrubHub Inc., a service that provides food delivery to customers via an on demand dispatch system. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) is that the delivery driver plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors and denied the benefits of California wage-and-hour laws. Defendants removed the case to federal court from the San Francisco Superior Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Plaintiffs subsequently filed the FAC, which alleges that Defendants mischaracterize delivery drivers as independent contractors instead of employees in violation of California law and, as a result of the misclassification, have violated a number of California Labor Code provisions. Lawson alone brings the first five counts under the Labor Code, while both Lawson and Tan bring the PAGA claim alleged in the sixth count. In the motion, Defendants seek to dismiss the entire FAC for failure to state a claim, and ask the Court to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the PAGA claims under the Colorado River abstention doctrine. In her Order dated March 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/lXNJHF from Leagle.com, Judge Corley dismissed with leave to amend Counts III, IV and VI. Count V is dismissed with leave to amend to the extent it is predicated on the insufficiently pled Labor Code violations alleged in Counts II, III, and IV. The Court declines to dismiss or stay the PAGA claims pursuant to Colorado River. The statute on PAGA claims is silent with respect to whether an employee may bring a PAGA action when another private plaintiff brings suit against the employer in a representative capacity. Defendants may file any amended complaint within 21 days. Plaintiffs are represented by Matthew David Carlson, Esq. - mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES, Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- and Thomas Fowler, Esq. -- tfowler@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. Grubhub, Inc. is represented by Justin Tyler Goodwin, Esq. -- jgoodwin@gibsondunn.com -- Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada, Esq. -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- and Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GUAM: Ordered to Pay $2.2MM in Attorneys' Fees in Tax Refund Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Raymundo and Kyle J. Daly, writing for Pacific Daily News, report that the District Court of Guam on April 8 ordered the Calvo administration to pay about $2.2 million in attorneys' fees, which includes costs and anticipated interest, in a case that could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case stems from a 2011 class-action lawsuit related to the government of Guam's inability to pay tax refunds in a timely manner. In 2013, the local federal court ordered the administration to pay all error-free refunds within six months of a tax return filing. Since then, the Calvo administration has been challenging the mandate. After losing an appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court, the administration then appealed the nation's highest court. The local federal court's order to pay attorneys' fees in the case -- about $1.7 million, plus costs and anticipated interest -- comes prior to the Supreme Court making a decision whether to hear the case or not. "We hoped the District Court would grant a stay on the payment of attorneys' fees until the Supreme Court addressed the case," Oyaol Ngirairikl, the governor's office communications director, stated in a press release from Adelup issued on April 8. "If the case does move forward with the Supreme Court and we win, then the attorneys would have to repay this amount," the release said. The Supreme Court recently asked plaintiffs in the case to respond to the Calvo administration's challenge to the injunction. The court initially requested a response from the plaintiffs that was due on March 3, however, one of their attorneys, Ignacio Aguigui, told Pacific Daily News in March that he had instead filed a waiver of response in order to preserve resources. "Because we've prevailed so far on so many levels, why go through another one? That's the gist of it," he previously said. Mr. Aguigui had said that just because the Supreme Court requests a response doesn't mean they will hear the case. "It just means they want to hear from us," he said. The court again asked the plaintiffs to respond to the Calvo administration's writ of certiorari, which is a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a lower court's ruling -- in this particular case, the 2011 class-action lawsuit that resulted in the District Court of Guam's federal court order. "The fact is now that the Supreme Court has gotten back to them and said 'that's not good enough,'" said Arthur Clark, chief policy adviser to Gov. Eddie Calvo. "So they do want to hear from them." From his perspective, Mr. Clark said he believes the high court has an interest in the case. "The only way I can interpret that is they do have an interest," Clark said, while stressing that "it doesn't mean they're going to grant cert or deny cert." Adelup's press release issued on April 8 states the administration believes the Supreme Court has an interest in the case because it wants a response from the plaintiffs. In a letter dated March 31, Daniel Girard of Girard Gibbs LLP, which also represents the plaintiffs, asked the court for a 30-day extension to file the response -- moving the due date from April 25 to May 25. He wrote that the attorneys in the case are currently in pretrial preparations for other cases. "An extension in this matter will not prejudice petitioners," Girard wrote, adding: "The extension also will not prejudice class members, who will continue to benefit from the District Court's injunction and the Ninth Circuit's mandate." The court granted the request. On April 1, the justices of the Supreme Court were scheduled to hold conference, which is when they consider the latest petitions filed. The Calvo administration's petition was listed for distribution to the justices for conference. It's unclear whether the case was discussed among the justices. The administration has continued to challenge the injunction, arguing it ties the government's hands financially. "In this case, the Ninth Circuit tied Guam's hands by affirming an onerous injunction that required Guam to repay all taxes with six months of the filing of a refund claim," the petition states. After losing on appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court last year, the administration had until Dec. 31 to file the petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for possible consideration of the case. In December, the governor's legal team, which includes the global law firm Kirkland and Ellis, first filed an application, asking the court to maintain the stay on the government's mandate to pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees from the case. They also filed a request to extend the deadline to file their writ of certiorari. The administration has argued that the government of Guam shouldn't be liable for any attorney fees because Guam is to be treated as a federal agency tasked with collecting and refunding federal taxes pursuant to federal tax laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy denied the application to stay the mandate, but approved the deadline extension, which gave the administration until Feb. 1 to file the writ. GYMBOREE CORP: Violated UCL, FAL & CLRA, "Dennis" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Dennis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Gymboree Corp., a Delaware corporation, Gymboree Retail Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1- 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00835- L-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 7, 2016), seeks restitution and other equitable remedies, including injunction and damages, under California's Unfair Competition Laws (UCL), California's False Advertising Laws (FAL), and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The lawsuit arose due to alleged Defendant's false and misleading advertisement of market prices, and corresponding phantom savings on clothing and children's apparel and accessories sold in its retail outlet stores, including Gymboree Outlet stores. Gymboree operates as a retail store. It sells clothes for children till the age of 12 years. The company is based in Calgary, Canada. Gymboree, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Gymboree Corp. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756 6994 Facsimile: (619) 756 6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Consumers to Get Checks in Organic Shampoo Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Gibson, writing for CBS News, reports that when it comes to product labels, a billing of "natural" is basically meaningless, while something certified "organic" actually has some teeth. That's unless the items involve personal care or household cleaning, which have fallen through the cracks of government oversight. "It's innocent until proven guilty for chemicals in consumer products," said Julia Brody, executive director of Silent Spring Institute, a nonprofit group that researches the links between exposure to chemicals in everyday products and breast cancer. Brody is referring to a system where regulatory action typically follows consumer complaints. "A lot of consumers go to the store with the assumption if it's on the shelf, that it's been tested for safety," she said. Much of what's on a product's label involves marketing, rather than information for consumers, said Londa Vanderwal Nwadike, a food safety specialist at Kansas State University/University of Missouri. "There is a regulation that says labeling terms should not be misleading. How much that's enforced is another question." Illustrating the climate in which purveyors of natural goods operate are recent developments at Hain Celestial Group (HAIN), one of the nation's biggest makers of natural shampoos and skin cleansers. Already under fire after The Wall Street Journal reported that Hain's Celestial Earth's Best baby shampoo contained a chemical cleansing agent despite claims to the contrary, Hains Celestial in February separately settled for $7.5 million a class action by a California resident and the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health, or CEH, which sued over the organic labeling of its Avalon Organics and Jason personal care product brands. The Journal commissioned testing, which found sodium lauryl sulfate, or SLS, in Hains Celestial Earth's Best baby shampoo, as well as in laundry detergent made by upstart Honest Co. Hains responded by saying it was already working on revamping its ingredients, while Honest Co. disputed the newspaper's findings. The Journal's findings and court case highlight a gap in oversight of the term "organic," which unlike the word "natural" has a specific meaning on a product label and is regulated by the U.S. Department of Agricultural and overseen by independent certifiers. That said, the USDA's organic oversight does not extend to personal care products, unless its makers use the USDA organic seal. But California has a more stringent organic standard, which unlike the federal rule, specifically covers cosmetics. "In California, it has to contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients, excluding water and salt. We discovered a number of years ago the law is widely ignored," said Howard Hirsch, an attorney and outside counsel for the CEH. The nonprofit sued about two dozen personal-product companies in 2011 over their organic labeling claims, reaching settlements with most of them later that year. With Hain Celestial, a class action was filed on behalf of CEH and consumers who paid more for its products because they believed them to be organic. The company is "one of the biggest actors with the biggest sales and causing the biggest impact on the market," Mr. Hirsch explained. "With Hain you had a large publicly traded company that prides itself on being a leader in the organic natural marketplace." In the next couple of weeks, checks will be mailed to around 22,000 consumers in California who purchased personal care products that Hain Celestial billed as organic. Of the $7.5 million it's paying, about $4 million will cover legal fees, and the remainder will cover the cost of notifying and refunding consumers. Any unclaimed cash will go to organizations including the California Consumer Protection Foundation, Mr. Hirsch said. Because of California's size, companies forced to adapt to its rules will likely do so nationally, said Mr. Hirsch. Still, he advises consumers to read the list of ingredients. "From a consumer standpoint, a lot of people are surprised that you can call it organic if it's only 70 percent," said the lawyer. "Even if the front label says organic, it's worth flipping to the back. Companies play fast and loose with the rules, so 30 percent could be rat poison and you can call it organic." On April 7, Hain Celestial said in a release that its Avalon Organics line of personal care products had been repackaged and some of it reformulated, steps the company said are in response to consumer preferences and also part of an annual innovation review. HG STAFFING: Courts Denies Class Certification in "Sargant" ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Larry R. Hicks of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granted Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, decertify FLSA Collective Action and for leave to file excess pages in the case captioned, TIFFANY SARGANT, BAILEY CRYDERMAN, SAMANTHA L. IGNACIO (formerly SCHNEIDER), VINCENT M. IGNACIO, HUONG ("ROSIE") BOGGS, and JACQULYN WIEDERHOLT on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HG STAFFING, LLC; MEI-GSR HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GRAND SIERRA RESORT; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv- 00453-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.). On June 21, 2013, Plaintiffs Tiffany Sargant and Bailey Cryderman filed their original collective and class action Complaint against Defendants in the Second Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe. On August 22, 2013, Defendants filed a Petition for Removal. On June 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint. The SAC alleged nine causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et. seq; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime at the Correct Rate, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207; (4) Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.016; (5) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of the Nevada Constitution and NRS 608.250; (6) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.018; (7) Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due and Owing in Violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.020-.050; (8) Unlawful Chargebacks in Violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.100; and (9) Age Discrimination Violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 and NRS 613.330. On May 6, 2014, Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims (first, second, and third causes of action) were conditionally certified. On September 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification as to their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action. On November 4, 2015, Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and a Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective Action and for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action. On November 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification and their Response to Defendants' Motion for Decertification and Partial Summary Judgment. On January 12, 2016, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was granted as to Plaintiff's fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action. In his Order dated March 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/UBghsk from Leagle.com, Judge Hicks concluded that Plaintiffs' claims failed to demonstrate commonality and typicality. Plaintiffs have simply failed to address their fifth cause of action for Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of the Nevada Constitution and NRS 608.250 while seeking class certification. Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D Buck, Esq. Leah Lin Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511-76520 Tel: (775)284-1500 HG Staffing, Inc. is represented by: H. Stan Johnson, Esq. Terry Kinnally, Esq. COHEN JOHNSON LLC 255 E Warm Springs Rd #100 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Tel: (702) 823-3500 HONEST COMPANY: Violated UFUBP, CLRA & FAL, "Gomez" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Gomez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Honest Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02439 (C.D. Cal., Western Div., April 8, 2016), seeks restitution of all money obtained from Plaintiff collected by Defendant as a result of its unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent conduct, and seeks injunctive relief, and all other relief the Court deems appropriate, pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Unlawful, Fraudulent & Unfair Business Practices (UFUBP), and California False Advertising Law (FAL). Despite Defendant's marketing campaign that boasts its products to be "Honestly free of" or "Honestly made without" sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), Defendant's products are allegedly laden with the chemical. By stating its products contain sodium coco sulfate (SCS) instead of SLS, Honest is deceiving its customers by representing that they can avoid SLS by using Honest products, and charging a premium for the purportedly "safer" products. Honest Company designs and manufactures bundles, baby, bath and body, cleaning, health and wellness, collective, and gift products. It offers diapers and wipes bundle, essentials bundle, health and wellness bundle, diapers, wipes, healing balm, diaper rash cream, organic baby powder, soothing bottom wash, organic breathe easy rub, training pants, organic shave oil, discovery set, shampoo and body wash, conditioner, conditioning detangler, sunscreen, sunscreen spray, sunscreen stick, bug spray, laundry detergent, laundry packs, dryer cloths, multi-surface cleaner, bathroom cleaner, glass and window cleaner, floor cleaner, and stain remover. The Plaintiff is represented by: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong, Esq. Janine L. Pollack, Esq. Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-459 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com pollack@whafh.com melwani@whafh.com - and - LEE S. SHALOV 260 Madison Avenue MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 278 4298 Facsimile: (212) 448 0066 E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com HONEYWELL INT'L: Court Permits Filing of Second Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted in part plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and Supporting Memorandum of Law in the case captioned, DEREK SCOTT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-00157-PAB-MJW (D. Colo.). On January 21, 2014, plaintiff filed the class action suit against defendant Honeywell International, Inc., alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, strict products liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sections 6-1- 105, et seq., and the Colorado Products Liability Act. On April 7, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss all of plaintiff's claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b). Docket No. 23. On April 28, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), Docket No. 29, thereby mooting defendant's motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims in plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b). Docket No. 32. On March 30, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's claims for breach of express warranty, failure of essential purpose, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, negligence, strict products liability, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Colorado Products Liability Act. The Court did not state whether the dismissed claims were dismissed with or without prejudice. On May 1, 2015, plaintiff filed the motion for leave to file a second amended class action complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint withdraws several claims asserted in the first amended complaint and provides additional substantive allegations in support of several claims asserted in the first amended complaint. Defendant opposes plaintiff's motion for leave to amend insofar as it attempts to resuscitate claims that the Court dismissed, which defendant argues are presumed to have been dismissed with prejudice. Defendant also argues that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend should be denied as futile. In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/ZOJIC2 from Leagle.com, Judge Brimmer found that the proposed second amended complaint stated a plausible failure of essential purpose claim and that it failed to state a plausible claim for breach of implied warranties and allowing plaintiff to amend the complaint as to this claim would be futile. Derek Scott is represented by William Harold Anderson, Esq. -- wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Michael James Flannery, Esq. -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- and Bonnie Prober, Esq. -- bprober@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP The Plaintiff is also represented by: Jill Tan Lin, Esq. Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS LLP 711 Van Ness Ave #500, San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415)568-2555 Honeywell International, Inc. is represented by Jeannine Louise Lee, Esq. -- jeannine.lee@stinson.com -- Todd Anders Noteboom, Esq. -- lowell.noteboom@stinson.com -- and Perry L. Glantz, Esq. -- perry.glantz@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP IL GABBIANO: Faces "Sulaj" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act -------------------------------------------------------------- VALDO SULAJ, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IL GABBIANO MIAMI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and GINO MASCI, an individual, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-21239-UU (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2016), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wage, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. IL GABBIANO MIAMI, LLC d/b/a Il Gabbiano operates a restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305.358.6800 Fax: 305.358.6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com legal@kuvinlaw.com INTELLICORP RECORDS: Must Defend Against "Legrand" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Donald C. Nugent of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Defendant's motion to strike class allegations in Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and motion to dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the case captioned, SHERRI LEGRAND, Plaintiff, v. INTELLICORP RECORDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15 CV 2091 (N.D. Ohio). The Plaintiff asserts three claims on behalf of three separate purported nationwide classes. The first count alleges that the CATO Corporation (CATO) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by procuring consumer reports without providing the disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(b)(2)(A)(I). The second count asserts that IntelliCorp Records, Inc. (IntelliCorp) violated the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in its consumer reports as required by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b). The third and final count claims that IntelliCorp violated the FCRA by failing to maintain strict procedures to assure that public record information being reported, which was likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer, was complete and up to date as required by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a). These claims are brought on behalf of the named Plaintiff, Ms. Legrand, and on behalf of three corresponding purported classes. The Complaint alleges that the violations at issue were willful violations of the FCRA. Further, although the FCRA allows a consumer to recover actual damages, Plaintiff seeks only statutory damages, for herself and the class. Defendant IntelliCorp has filed a combined Motion to Strike the Class Allegations in Count II of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. IntelliCorp believes that the no class can be certified for Count II under any circumstances, because the Court would necessarily have to engage in individualized inquiries for every putative class member in order to determine the class. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/e6ZuQtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Nugent concluded that IntelliCorp's arguments, although they appear to be aimed, at least in part, at the difficulties that might arise in determining the class do not provide a legitimate challenge to ascertainability as the Sixth Circuit has defined it. The class as proposed by the Plaintiff is objectively defined and potentially ascertainable. Sherri Legrand is represented by E. Michelle Drake, Esq. -- emdrake@bm.net -- and John G. Albanese, Esq. -- jalbanese@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE & Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. -- mdooley@omdplaw.com -- O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA Intellicorp Records, Inc. is represented by Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. -- jriley@seyfarth.com -- John W. Drury, Esq. -- jdury@seyfarth.com -- Kyle Anne Petersen, Esq. -- kpetersen@seyfarth.com -- and Pamela Q. Devata, Esq. - pdevata@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- and David H. Wallace, Esq. -- dwallace@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER J.C. PENNEY: "Knatt" Suit Over Paid Time Off Sent to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DESIREE KNATT and SARAH LOWE, Plaintiffs, v. J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15cv2516 JM(KSC) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller granted the motion filed by J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP) to compel arbitration of the claims asserted by Desiree Knatt and Sarah Lowe. The plaintiffs commenced a diversity action by alleging that JCP's My Time Off Vacation Policy (MTO Policy) violates Cal. Labor Code section 227.3 and constitutes and unlawful business practice under Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code section 17200 et seq. JCP moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to an arbitration provision executed by the plaintiffs when they were employed by JCP. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, generally contending that the arbitration provision is unconscionable and their claims are excluded from the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Judge Miller found that the arbitration provision is not substantially unconscionable, neither procedurally nor substantively. Judge Miller also found that the plaintiffs' claims do not arise under the NLRA, since JCP's MTO Policy is a non-ERISA welfare benefit plan, not subject to the scope of the ERISA. A full-text copy of Judge Miller's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/xzElbgfrom Leagle.com. Desiree Knatt, Sarah Lowe, Plaintiff, represented by James C Kostas, Huffman and Kostas & Sheldon A Ostroff, Law Offices of Sheldon A Ostroff. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Karl Gustave Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice. JEFFERSON COUNTY: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Suit v. BOE ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge R. David Proctor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Class Certification in the case captioned, DARRYL WALKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:13-CV-524-RDP (N.D. Ala.). Plaintiffs are a group of 10 so-called 240-day employees either currently or formerly employed by the Jefferson County Board of Education. For purposes of this motion, their claims can be divided into two categories. First, they have sued the Board alleging that the Board's previous practice of dividing their annual salaries by 260 days to obtain their hourly and overtime rates violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et. seq. The court refers to this allegation as Plaintiffs' Common Claim. Second, Plaintiffs have also alleged a garden variety of other FLSA violations. The court refers to those allegations as Plaintiffs' Individual Claims. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Jefferson County Board of Education did not properly calculate the daily rate of the plaintiffs for FLSA purposes. Twelve month employees who worked as certified technicians and mechanics, support specialists, utility workers, secretaries, electricians, accountants, and custodians for Defendant daily rate of pay was calculated by dividing their individual annual salary by 260 days instead of 240 days. This resulted in an incorrect and lower hourly rate of overtime rate. In their Motion, Plaintiffs request that the court conditionally certify a class of the Board's non-exempt, 240-day employees to provide them an opportunity to opt-in and collectively assert the Common Claim. Defendants argue that the "Common Claim" made by Plaintiffs is also time barred because the Board remedied that alleged FLSA violation more than two years before the filing of the Complaint. In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/SXqAirfrom Leagle.com, Judge Proctor found that Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that, if the court grants certification, additional plaintiffs are likely to surface in any meaningful number. Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome Tucker, Esq. John D Saxon, Esq. JOHN D SAXON PC 2119 3rd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-3314 Tel: (205)324-0223 Jefferson County Board of Education is represented by: Whit Colvin, Esq. Carl E. Johnson, Jr., Esq. Claire Hyndman Puckett, Esq. BISHOP COLVIN JOHNSON & KENT LLP 1910 1st Ave N Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205)251-2881 JPMORGAN CHASE: "Farrell" Suit Seeks Redress of Plan Under ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Farrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JP Morgan Chase & CO., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Jane or John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02627 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2016), seeks redress for losses to his Employee Benefit Plan; injunctive relief; and secure disgorgement of unjust profits, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). JP Morgan Chase Bank provides global financial services and retail banking. The Company offers investment banking, treasury and securities services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. David S. Preminger, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1140 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 380-6690 Facsimile: (646) 380-6692 E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gobrist@kellerrohrback.com KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG TAN: Faces "Sekura" Class Suit in Ill. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- Klaudia Sekura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Sona Aurora Tan Co., Inc., 753 Bolingbrook, Inc., Sola Lawrence Tan, Inc., Sona 1300 Fullerton Tan, Inc., Crystal Lake Tan, Incfrankfort 19981, Inc., Sola Malibu Tan, Inc., Joliet La Tan Inc., Sona Lisle Tan, Inc., New Lenox Tan, Inc., Palm Beach Tan, Inc., Sona Northbrook Tan, Inc, Mira Orland Tan, Inc., Sona Palatine Tan, Inc., 225 Shorewood, Inc., Mira Suprtan, Inc., Sona Tinley Tan, Inc., Mongo Tree, Inc., 1760 Waukegan, Inc., Hollywood Tan, Inc., Sola Joliet, Inc., And Metro Tan Salon, Inc., All Illinois Corporations; Np Hanover, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Hoffman Tan, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-04945 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. - Chancery Div., April 7, 2016), seeks an order declaring that Defendants' conduct violates the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), requiring Defendants' to cease unlawful activities, and awarding statutory damages to Plaintiff. Krishna Tan operates a tanning salon located in Schaumburg, Illinois under the brand and trade name L.A. Tan. Krishna Tan is a franchisee of L.A. Tan Enterprises. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Todd Logan, Esq. David I. Mindell, 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 tlogan@edelson.com dmindell@edelson.com LIHUA INT'L: Court Drops Individual Defendants in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE LIHUA INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 14-CV-5037 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Corrected Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "CSAC") as to the defendants Daphne Yan Huang, Robert C. Bruce, Jonathan P. Serbin, and Kelvin Lau, but denied the motion as to Lihua International, Inc. On April 30, 2014, Lihua issued a press release acknowledging that its directors were "aware of a decline in the Company's stock price and published allegations that Mr. Zhu Jianhua, the Company's CEO and Chairman of the Company's Board, may have diverted or attempted to divert Company assets and as a result may have been the subject of action by local law enforcement." The press release also acknowledged that, "if the allegations prove true, the Company's financial statements may contain material misstatements. A day later, plaintiffs James Holtz, Peter Hoang and Beverly Burks, who have allegedly purchased Lihua stock "at artificially inflated prices" between August 9, 2012 and April 30, 2014, sued Lihua and its executives and/or directors, bringing two claims under the Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiffs alleged that Zhu, Huang, and Lihua violated section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because they made false or misleading statements about Lihua's debt, production, and corporate governance. The plaintiffs also alleged that Zhu, Wang, Huang, Bruce, Serbin, and Lau are jointly and severally liable pursuant to section 20(a) because they controlled the section 10(b) violators. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs CSAC for failure to plead with particularity that some of the statements cited in the CSAC were false and for failure to allege scienter as to any defendant other than Zhu and his wife, Yaying Wang, who was Lihua's Chief Operating Officer and a member of the Company's board. Judge Abrams concluded that the plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Lihua's SEC filings contain material misstatements or omissions. The judge also found that the CSAC adequately pleads Lihua's scienter. Judge Abrams, however, found that the plaintiffs failed to allege scienter as to Huang, and that the plaintiffs failed to plead culpable participation in order to state a claim under section 20(a) against Huang, Bruce, Serbin, and Lao. A full-text copy of Judge Abrams' March 31, 2016 opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/zsYuALfrom Leagle.com. James Holtz, Lead Plaintiff, Ashish Anand, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. & Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.. Peter Hoang, Beverly Burks, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Stern, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.. Jeffrey Grodko, Plaintiff, represented by Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Jeffrey Grodko, Consolidated Plaintiff, Robert B. Dreisin, Movant, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP. Shawn Hart, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Lihua International Inc., Defendant, represented by Claire Loebs Davis -- davisc@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Douglas W. Greene -- greened@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell, Jay Shapiro -- shapiroj@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams, LLP, Kristin Beneski -- beneskik@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Peter Douglas Hawkes -- hawkesp@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Sharon Ben-Shahar -- sbs@birdmarella.com -- Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks and Lincenberg. Philip Cafaro, Bankruptcy Movant, represented by Betsy C. Manifold, Symphony Tower & Matthew Moylan Guiney -- guiney@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. LITTLE GASPARILLA: "Demeter" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Demeter and Paul Coblentz, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Little Gasparilla Island Fire and Rescue, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00264-SPC-CM (S.D. Fla., Fort Myers Div., April 7, 2016), seeks to recover lost wages, benefits and remuneration, and liquidates damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants offers fire and rescue services in Little Gasparilla Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Caputo" Class Action in N.J. Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Caputo, Catherine Roberts, Keith Hall, Flavio Moy, A. Eric Ngwashi, Bobby Hamilton, Maryana Melnyk, Paul Herrmann, Lynn Doherty Munoe, Brenda O'Neal, Charles Wolford, Thomas Weiss, John Laurino, Andrew Deutsch, Michael Medler, Dr. Gregory Chan, And Lars Dannberg on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16- cv-01934-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., April 7, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and equitable relief for alleged Mercedes' misconduct related to the design, manufacture, marketing, sale, and lease of Affected Vehicles with unlawfully high emissions. Mercedes recently admitted that a shut-off device in the engine management of certain BlueTEC diesel cars stops nitrogen monoxide cleaning when ambient temperatures drop below 50 degrees Fahrenheit and under other, unspecified circumstances. And testing at highway speeds, at low temperatures, and at variable speeds, indicate a systemic failure to meet emissions standards. Low temperature testing at highway speeds, for example, produced emissions that were 8.1 to 19.7 times the highway emissions standard. Testing at low temperatures at variable speeds produced emissions as high as 30.8 times the standard. Mercedes-Benz USA is a Delaware limited liability corporation whose principal place of business is at Atlanta, Georgia. Mercedes, through its various entities, designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sell Mercedes automobiles in Illinois and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628 4949 Facsimile: (708) 628 4950 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - David Freydin, Esq. Timothy A. Scott, Esq. FREYDIN LAW OFFICES 8707 Skokie Blvd. No. 305 Skokie, IL 60077 Telephone: (866) 308 0051 E-mail: david.freydin@freydinlaw.com Timothy.scott@freydinlaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604 Telephone: (513) 345 4291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com MICHIGAN: Detroit Public Schools' Board Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Joe Giuliani, writing for Examiner.com, reports that the board of education for Detroit Public Schools sued the state of Michigan in federal court, alleging the state's long time management of the city's schools is a violation of those students' civil rights. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, and it names as defendants, Gov. Rick Snyder, two lawmakers, several former emergency managers, and those individuals recently charged with running a bribery and extortion scheme, among other defendants. The board is represented in its lawsuit by attorney Thomas Bleakly, who is handling the case for free. At a news conference, Mr. Bleakly echoed members of the school board who have stated that academic achievement at Detroit schools has gotten worse since the state took over the system. DPS was taken over by the state in 1999 in hopes of turning around a school system that state lawmakers said was failing to properly educate students and could not handle its own finances. Since then, it has been run by a number of different state-appointed emergency managers, none of whom has been able to cure the problems at DPS. The problems at Detroit schools came to a head in the media this year when city teachers began staying home from work to call attention to dilapidated and in some cases unsafe building conditions. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan went to schools to survey situation, and news camera crews showed footage of school buildings in various states of disrepair. Only recently a number of school administrators and a vendor were indicted on charges of running a bribery scheme that bilked $1 million from Detroit schools by billing DPS for services never delivered. MRI INTERNATIONAL: "Takiguchi" Suit Wins Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Howard D. McKibben of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA, TATSURO SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA, HATSUNE HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., EDWIN J FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT, INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-01183-HDM-VCF (D. Nev.). Plaintiffs are nine Japanese investors who bring this suit on behalf of a putative class of 8,700 individuals who invested with defendant MRI International, Inc. (MRI) between July 5, 2008, and May 1, 2013. MRI is a Nevada corporation headquartered in Las Vegas with a branch in Tokyo, Japan. They allege that since 1998, MRI purported to run a business that dealt in the purchase and collection of "Medical Accounts Receivable" (MARS). The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that none of the representations defendants made about the safety of investing in MRI were true, and that instead of using investors' money to purchase MARS, defendants used the money to pay off earlier investors, fund their lavish lifestyles, and finance other undisclosed ventures. The suit contends that the findings by the Financial Services Agency (FSA) precipitated the collapse of the MRI scheme. Since that time, multiple lawsuits have been filed in connection with MRI's collapse. In addition to the putative class action, several individual lawsuits were filed in Japan, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against MRI and Fujinaga and a criminal indictment has been returned against Fujinaga, Junzo Suzuki and Paul Musashi Suzuki, also in the district. In his Order dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/k1SMai from Leagle.com, Judge McKibben concluded that the propose class satisfies the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and certified a class of "The MRI Investor Class consisting of: all persons who purchased MRI securities during the period July 5, 2008, through May 1, 2013, and were injured as a result of the defendants' conduct. Excluded from the class are the defendants, their employees, their family members and their affiliates, and the following 26 individuals who are plaintiffs in the pending litigation against the defendants in Japan: (1) Tomoyasu Kojima; (2) Keiko Amaya; (3) Masakazu Sekihara; (4) Chiri Satou; (5) Meiko Murakami; (6) Masayoshi Tsutsumi; (7) Yumiko Ishiguro; (8) Reiko Suzuki; (9) Hiroji Sumita; (10) Eiko Uchiyama; (11) Hideyo Uchiyama; (12) Youzou Shiki; (13) Naoki Nagasawa; (14) Noboru Yokoyama; (15) Masami Segawa; (16) Fumiko Takagi; (17) Kumiko Kaita; (18) Fumi Kobayashi; (19) Ikuko Miyazaki; (20) Hina Nagase; (21) Akio Iwama; (22) Kouji Kishida; (23) Eri Kishida; (24) Nomai Nii; (25) Youko Miyahara; and (26) Tsukiko Kurano." The Court directed Plaintiffs to file with the court a proposed form of notice in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) on or before April 5, 2016. Plaintiffs are represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Esq. -- jeg@manningllp.com -- and Steven Jeff Renick, Esq. - sjr@manningllp.com -- MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP They are also represented by: James R. Olson, Esq. OLSON, CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO & STOBERSKI 9950 W Cheyenne Ave Las Vegas, NV 89129 Tel: (702)384-4012 - and - Mariko Taenaka, Esq. Robert W. Cohen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. COHEN, APC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310)282-7586 MRI International, Inc. is represented by: Daniel L. Hitzke, Esq. HITZKE & ASSOCIATES 100 Ocenagate, Suite 1100 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562)595-9983 NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Customers May Receive $6.6MM Settlement Payouts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marianna Papadakis, writing for Financial Review, reports that National Australia Bank customers could end up receiving about a third of a total $6.6 million settlement that was to safeguard compensation for the alleged wrongful levy of penalty fees by the bank. The Federal Court approved a confidential settlement between class action members led by Maurice Blackburn on April 6 which resulted in $6.6 million in compensation being apportioned to NAB customers for late payment fees the bank levied on credit cards. But of that amount, $600,000 will go to Maurice Blackburn for legal fees and disbursements, and $4.1 million will go to the litigation funder for the case, IMF Bentham, leaving NAB customers with about $2.5 million. NAB abolished fees charged for dishonoring accounts and slashed its credit card late payment fees in 2009. The consumer class action is one of nine launched by Maurice Blackburn against major banks including NAB, Westpac Banking Corp and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia over fees. The outcome of all the matters is linked to the outcome of a High Court appeal in the lead test case against Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. The appeal, heard by the High Court heard an appeal on February 4 and 5, was brought by consumers against a ruling of the full bench of the Federal Court last year that found ANZ's credit card late payment fees were legitimate. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY "One of the difficulties with this settlement is a lack of transparency to determine whether it was good for customers, including how much a fee to the litigation funder would be," Consumer Action Law Centre chief executive Gerard Brody said. "We think the class actions regime and the role of funders should be scrutinized more closely." Mr. Brody said the number of class action members was unknown and likely to be fewer than those aggrieved. This included vulnerable consumers who were excluded from the settlement including sick, disabled and aged people who lacked a capacity to opt in to the class action process. He said the Consumer Action Law Centre had written to the NAB chief executive Andrew Thorburn requesting that vulnerable customers "unfairly" excluded from its bank fees class action deal be compensated. "The most disadvantaged in the community are more likely not to take action in response to legal problems," Mr. Brody said. "In our casework we also found they were more likely to be charged multiple penalty fees by banks." IMF Bentham executive director Hugh McLernon said the funder's fee was 25 per cent, making up $1.65 million of the total $6.6 million. The remainder of the $4.1 million was NAB clients' share of the common costs of the test case against ANZ. This was something all IMF clients in the various bank fees class actions undertook to pay, he said. FUNDER PERCENTAGE COULD BE LOWER Mr. McLernon said the percentage received by the litigation funder could be lower depending on the outcome of a High Court appeal in the ANZ case. "The majority of the $4.1 million payable to IMF is the NAB client group share of those common fees for the test case against ANZ," Mr. McLernon said. "If the ANZ appeal is lost then the NAB clients will receive the $2.5 million instead of nothing. If the ANZ appeal is successful then the NAB clients will receive the $2.5 million, will not have to pay the common fees, and will receive a further top-up to the settlement sum." An NAB spokeswoman said NAB was pleased to have reached agreement and provide certainty for its customers and shareholders. A Maurice Blackburn spokesman said the judgment ensured NAB customers were the only banking customers in the country assured of recovering some of their unfair fees from this long-running litigation, with that amount set to rise in the event of success in the High Court. "In determining whether to approve the settlement agreed between the class members and NAB, the court was required to consider whether the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the interests of the class members," she said. Mr. Brody said many banks still charged high penalty fees, including for late payment on credit cards and for overdrawing or dishonoring accounts. NAB increased its late payment fee on credit card accounts by 80 per cent from $5 to $9 on March 1, he said. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Crisis to Prompt Early Retirement ------------------------------------------------------------ Jenn Loro, writing for News Everday, reports that early NFL retirements are starting to become a raging trend among professional footballers these days. The league's so-called 'concussion crisis' is starting to escalate in what many observers call as the 'retirement crisis'. When news of D'Brickashaw Ferguson's farewell got leaked early on April 8, the former New York Jets left tackle had just joined a string of other NFL veterans who hanged up their cleats after a little over 10 years or so in professional football. "Yes . . . there's been a culture shift fueled by variables that include concussions, CTE concerns, protocols, a huge class-action lawsuit and common sense," sports writer Jarret Bell wrote in his USA Today piece. He further noted, "Players, in many cases, are not so much waking up to the ultimate reality check of having their broken-down bodies kicked to the curb in a salary-cap slashing as they are to opting out on their own terms." As the general view on the long-term downside of professional football continues to shift, the trend would probably see more and more stream of young retirees in the years to come. Before, NFL players would hang on as much as they can to score a lucrative contract. However, a series of class action lawsuits filed by football veterans against the league brought to public light the dangers of CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) -- a brain condition resulting from repeated concussions which may lead to Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. It can be remembered that Ferguson expressed a sense of betrayal by the NFL after watching Will Smith film 'Concussion' which revolved around the dire consequences of head trauma. "I fear the unavoidable truth is that playing football has placed me in harm's way, and I am not yet sure of the full extent of what it might cost me," remarked Mr. Ferguson as quoted by the Huffington Post. Furthermore, Ferguson appeared to have also been affected by the premature retirement of two 49ers players, namely, Anthony Davis and Chris Borland due to head injuries. Even players much younger than Ferguson are hanging up their cleats too. 23-year-old Bills linebacker AJ Tarpley also made a fateful decision to retire very soon after suffering his third and fourth concussions in the 2015 season. "I am walking away from the game I love to preserve my future health," Mr. Tarpley said as reported by New York Daily News. "This decision is the hardest I've made yet but after much research and contemplation I believe it's what is best for me going forward." NATIONAL SECURITIES: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Rutella" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nico Rutella, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by National Securities Corporation, National Holdings Corporation and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by National Securities Corporation and/or National Holdings Corporation, the Plaintiffs, v. National Securities Corporation, National Holdings Corporation and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by National Securities Corporation and/or National Holdings Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 601067/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct, Nassau Cty., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and OT compensation, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR). National Securities Corporation provides investment banking and financial advisory services to retail and institutional clients. The company offers mergers and acquisition advisory, recapitalizations, private placements, preferred stock offerings, and debt offerings assistance services. Additionally, it provides evaluation and execution of initial public offerings, due diligence, institutional trading, and strategic consulting services. The company was founded in 1947 and is based in New York, New York with additional offices at Seattle, Washington; and Boca Raton, Florida. National Securities Corporation operates as a subsidiary of National Holdings Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com NELSON WESTERBERG: Truth-in-Leasing Claims in "Mervyn" Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gary Feinerman granted the summary judgment motion filed by the defendants, and denied the plaintiff's class certification motion without prejudice in the case captioned THOMAS MERVYN, Plaintiff, v. NELSON WESTERBERG, INC., NEWESCO, INC., NELSON WESTERBERG INTERNATIONAL, and ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., Defendants, No. 11 C 6594 (N.D. Ill.). Thomas Mervyn, an independent truck driver who owns a truck and hires out the truck together with his driving services, performed several jobs for Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International, and Newesco, Inc. (collectively, "Newesco"), and Atlas Van Lines, Inc. between February and December of 2010 as governed by a single lease. On September 2011, Mervyn brought a putative class action against Newesco and Atlas, alleging that they violated the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations implementing the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, and unjustly enriched themselves in violation of state law, by underpaying their drivers. Mervyn moved to certify a class of drivers to pursue the Truth-in- Leasing claims, while the defendants moved for summary judgment against Mervyn on those claims. The defendants argued that Mervyn failed to contest the accuracy of any payment documents within the 180-day period prescribed by Section 11(f) of their lease and therefore that their payments to Mervyn must be presumed to comply with the lease. Judge Feinerman found that for eight of the nine ways alleged by Mervyn that Atlas and Newesco violated the lease, Mervyn has adduced no evidence that could lead to a conclusion that he lodged a timely complaint under Section 11(f) that would have allowed him to contest his pay later. Consequently, Judge Feinerman held that Mervyn is precluded under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a)(4) from being an adequate class representative for the eight claims. The judge also found that although Mervyn did lodge a timely complaint for the ninth claim, the military shipments claim, Mervyn forfeited that claim, and in any event the claim fails on its merits. The denial of the motion for class certification was without prejudice to the class counsel naming a substitute proposed class representative who arguably complied with Section 11(f) as to the eight claims whose merits remain unresolved. A full-text copy of Judge Feinerman's March 31, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/LdXEPkfrom Leagle.com. Thomas Mervyn, Plaintiff, represented by Marvin Alan Miller -- mmiller@millerlaw.com -- Miller Law LLC, Andrew Szot -- aszot@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC, Edward Dennis McNamara, Jr. -- mcnamara.evans@gmail.com -- McNamara & Evans, Lori Ann Fanning -- lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC & Matthew E Van Tine -- mvantine@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International, Defendants, represented by David H. Levitt -- dlevitt@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson & Steven M. Puiszis -- spuiszis@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson. Newesco, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Levitt, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Justin B. Weiner -- jweiner@mololamken.com -- Molo Lamken LLP, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr. -- mpattillo@mololamken.com -- Mololamken Llp & Thomas Joseph Wiegand -- twiegand@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Levitt, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Justin B. Weiner, Molo Lamken LLP, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr., Mololamken Llp, Nabil G. Foster -- nfoster@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Steven M. Puiszis, Hinshaw & Culbertson & Thomas Joseph Wiegand, MoloLamken LLP. Ace World Wide Moving & Storage Co., Inc., Movant, represented by Steven M. Puiszis, Hinshaw & Culbertson. NEVADA: Settles Fernley Flood Class Action for $18.1 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Sonner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that eight years, dozens of lawyers and hundreds of thousands of documents later, more than 200 northern Nevada flood victims are finally going to be paid for damages suffered when a century-old irrigation canal burst and sent a wall of water into their homes in 2008. No one was killed or seriously injured but 590 homes in Fernley were flooded when water burst through a 50-foot breach in the canal's earthen embankment Jan. 5, 2008. A 2-foot-tall wave swamped the neighborhood and water collected 8 feet deep in some parts of the rural town 30 miles east of Reno. More than a dozen residents were rescued from rooftops by helicopter, while others were taken to safety by boats. Judy Kroshus, lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit the local irrigation district recently agreed to settle for $18.1 million, and her 2-year-old grandchild were stranded by water "up to our windshield" before her son waded several blocks to rescue them. "We were lucky to get out," she said. The aging, 31-mile canal is a key component of the nation's first federal reclamation project, started in 1903. It's owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation but managed by the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID). The bureau concluded within two months of the breach that burrowing rodents had weakened the canal, causing it to fail. In July 2012, a federal jury returned a verdict during the liability phase of the trial finding the district's history of negligence in maintaining the canal was primarily to blame. Soon after, the district agreed to a $10 million settlement, but then backed out. The damages phase of the trial was scheduled to resume two months ago, but the district agreed to the new settlement terms after its members voted in February to raise money to finance the damage award by selling off some water rights to the Truckee Meadows Water Authority. Judge Lloyd George approved the deal March 31. "The settlement finally brings closure to those who were harmed through no fault of their own," said Patrick Leverty, lead co- counsel for the plaintiffs. Ms. Kroshus, who's the director of a tribal health service resource center in Fernley, said she had to short-sell her flood- damaged home and bought a new one just a year ago. "It's not in the flood area," she said. A similar rupture in the same vicinity flooded 60 homes in December 1996. The $18.1 million settlement includes about $7.8 million in attorney fees and expenses. Mr. Laverty said no one in the class objected to that part of the deal. NEW JERSEY SYMPHONY: Violated TCCWNA, "Fruchter" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Shani J. Fruchter, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. New Jersey Symphony Orchestra, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01942-WJM-MF (D.N.J., April 7, 2016), seeks penalties for violation of the Truth-in- Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). The Defendant is a seller of orchestra tickets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred M. Zemel Esq. THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 70 Clinton Ave. Newark, NJ 07114 Telephone: 973-622 5297 Facsimile: 973-824 2446 E-mail: Thezemellawfirm@icloud.com NEW ORLEANS, LA: Sheriff Faces Criticism Over Jail Management ------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Mustian, writing for The Advocate, reports that Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman's face was expressionless as he strode out of the federal courthouse on April 7, dodging reporters and digesting the latest criticism of his office. He had heard much of it before from the experts keeping tabs on the city's jail, including their warning that deputies have lost control of the recently opened Orleans Justice Center. The situation grew so dire that the experts, known as monitors, recommended parts of the facility be closed until the sheriff retrains his staff and reins in the violence at the lockup. But in a whirlwind week in which his chief deputy resigned and a legislative audit accused the Sheriff's Office of several financial improprieties, Sheriff Gusman also received a stinging rebuke from the bench. At the end of the April 7 hearing, U.S. District Judge Lance Africk raised a question that has taken on new urgency in recent weeks: After years of treading water, is the Sheriff's Office incapable of reforming conditions at the jail? Judge Africk stopped short of answering that query, but he said it's one that "must be vetted" amid the turmoil engulfing Sheriff Gusman and a recent report that described the jail as a degenerating "crisis environment." But Judge Africk also invoked the possibility that an outside party, known as a receiver, could take over day-to-day management of the jail -- a once-rejected proposal that has re-emerged amid a series of setbacks at the Sheriff's Office. The sheriff's leadership increasingly has been called into question by the monitors, who only a few months ago seemed willing to afford Sheriff Gusman the benefit of the doubt. "At this stage of the litigation," Judge Africk said, referring to the class-action lawsuit filed in 2012 by inmates seeking better conditions at the jail, "we've arrived at a point where the issue of whether the sheriff is capable of achieving compliance with the consent decree . . . should be addressed." Without offering specifics, Laura Coon, a Justice Department attorney, told the judge that she anticipates "seeking intervention from the court in the coming weeks." The Sheriff's Office, she added, is not "on the same page" with the federal government. Judge Africk has limited options when it comes to hastening the pace of change. He seems unlikely to levy financial sanctions against the Sheriff's Office, which receives its jail-related funding from City Hall. But the judge could consider removing Sheriff Gusman from control of the jail and appoint a receiver to try to turn it around -- a move that would strip the sheriff of his primary responsibilities, though he would keep his title. In such a scenario, the receiver essentially would be handed the keys to the jail and tasked with bringing its conditions in line with the Constitution. Such an action "doesn't happen very often," said Donald Specter, director of the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit watchdog in Berkeley, California. However, three years of failure to bring the jail up to mandated standards "is long enough in my view for a receivership to be considered," said Mr. Specter, whose organization filed a lawsuit that landed California's prison health care system in receivership about a decade ago. "The constitutional or statutory violations have to be very serious, and you have to show the jail administrators are ineffective," he added. "There has to be very little hope that the (local) government can comply with the consent decree on its own." Mayor Mitch Landrieu pushed for the now-shuttered Orleans Parish Prison to be placed in receivership in 2013, when city attorneys contended it was "highly unlikely, if not a certitude, that anything will improve" on Sheriff Gusman's watch. The mayor's proposal followed the release of shocking videos, shot in mid-2009, that showed inmates using drugs in jail and walking the streets when they were supposed to be behind bars -- footage that drew widespread attention to the jail's dysfunctional conditions. "Given the long and tortured history involving OPP, no consent decree, even as appropriately modified and tailored, will be effective unless the leadership changes," Harry Rosenberg, an attorney for the city, wrote in an April 2013 court filing. "If the current situation does not justify the appointment of a receiver, nothing does." Judge Africk never decided the merits of receivership, instead approving the consent decree as a settlement of the class-action lawsuit. That plan spelled out 173 provisions for reforming the jail, including a rewrite of Sheriff's Office policies. But the judge also left the door open for city leaders to "re- urge" their push for receivership should the reforms prove ineffectual. Today, the vast majority of the consent decree's provisions remain unfulfilled, as the Sheriff's Office has been plagued by soaring staff turnover rates and what Sheriff Gusman insists is a lack of adequate funding from the city. City Hall, for its part, attributes the jail's woes to managerial incompetence. The monitors warned recently that the Sheriff's Office has taken several steps back over the past six months, despite the opening of a new $150 million facility that Sheriff Gusman for years had promised would be a game-changer for inmates and deputies alike. In 2013, the Sheriff's Office vehemently opposed the appointment of a receiver, arguing in court filings that placing "the blame for the present situation on Sheriff Gusman, much less to suggest he should be stripped of virtually all powers and responsibilities . . . is patently wrong." Three years later, however, the sheriff might decide to embrace the idea as a means of finally receiving sufficient funding for the jail, said Rafael Goyeneche, president of the Metropolitan Crime Commission, who has sometimes defended the sheriff from his critics. Among the many unanswered questions is how the appointment of a receiver would affect the funding standoff between Sheriff Gusman and Landrieu. Mr. Goyeneche predicted that receivership ultimately would cost the city more money, because the receiver likely would petition Judge Africk directly for money needed to carry out the reforms. So far, the judge has declined to micromanage the budgetary disputes, saying he prefers to allow the political system to play out, but he could in effect order the city to pay millions of dollars more. "What has happened is that managerial mistakes (in the Sheriff's Office) have essentially convinced city leaders that giving the sheriff the resources he's requested would not produce the desired results," Mr. Goyeneche said. "Essentially, what the receiver is going to be charged with doing is accelerating and moving the jail into compliance with the consent decree. Finances will not be an impediment." Many of the problems at the Orleans Justice Center stem from poor inmate supervision, which appears, for example, to have played a role in the suicide in March of a 63-year-old inmate who hanged himself in the shower. A mental health expert testified that he had been astonished to discover the new jail was built with shower doors that inmates can lock from the inside. The expert, Dr. Raymond Patterson, told Judeg Africk months ago that the locks should be removed, but no one at the jail seemed to grasp the risk that they posed. Guards often are not available to intervene when problems arise, even when inmates are assaulting one another, said Ceris Wainright, a local woman who earlier this year spent 18 days behind bars on an allegation of domestic abuse battery. Ms. Wainright, 59, said she endured "subhuman conditions" behind bars and became gravely ill because the facility did not have the medications she needed. "Dante's Inferno has nothing on this place," Ms. Wainright said in an interview. "The inmates were running the asylum." OVERTURE LLC: "Chun" Suit Seeks Damages & OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Chun, individually and for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Overture, LLC, and Heather Sanderson, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04118 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Overture develops promotional products and advertising specialties. Its products include apparel, bags, drinkware, gifts, journals, coffee mugs, giveaways, calendars, and toys and novelties. The company offers imprinting services such as pad printing, screen printing, hot stamping, embroidery, and digitizing and banner production. In addition, it provides print collateral, graphic designing, employee recognition program, service award program, web-store, overseas importing, licensed merchandise, dealer network, retail program, and brand activation services. Overture, LLC was founded in 2001 and is based in Vernon Hills, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N Michigan Ave, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com PACIFIC TOMATO: Faces "Wingard" Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence Wingard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated, Plaintiff(s) vs. Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd., a Florida Limited Liability Partnership; PTG Management Company, a Florida Profit Corporation; Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-00834-RAL-MAP (M.D. Fla., April 7, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of growing and selling tomatoes and other produce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina J. Thomas, Esq. Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3487 E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com bmazaheri@forthepeople.com PALOS VERDES, CA: Some Locals Defend Lunada Bay Boys Amid Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Washicko, writing for Daily Breeze News, reports that outside the sleepy, affluent enclave of Palos Verdes Estates, not much affection exists for the territorial surfers loosely known as the Bay Boys. But in town, there is support for the aging surfers who defiantly built an elaborate hangout at the base of the Lunada Bay cliffs and have been known to verbally harass outsiders, throw rocks at them and vandalize their cars. Localism, it seems, is a concept well understood in bucolic Palos Verdes Estates. Larry Allen, the former owner of a hardware store in the community, defends the Bay Boys, casting doubt on the veracity of some of the claims made in a recently filed class-action lawsuit seeking a gang inunction against named Bay Boys. "I think this is a fictitious thing. (The plaintiffs are) just trying to make some money and they've seen a way of doing it," Mr. Allen said. "Just forget about it, go away. Leave (the Bay Boys) alone. They keep the area clean, they don't hurt anybody, they're not robbing people." Online, others echo similar sentiments. Lee W. Ryder, in a Facebook comment on an article titled "Surfer named in Lunada Bay Boys lawsuit denies allegations," said fault for any negative interactions lies with the people coming to Lunada Bay and causing trouble with the locals. One Palos Verdes Peninsula surfer said the Bay Boys have, in the long run, prevented injury among inexperienced surfers. The man, who declined to give his name to protect his relationship with the local surfers, said the large waves and sharp rocks and reefs could easily hurt less-experienced boarders. He added that Diana Milena Reed, one of the plaintiffs in the class-action suit, was partially to blame for aggravating the surfer who she alleges harassed her. "If you walk down there and everything, it's cool. But that girl walked in there and she put herself right in the middle of all these guys, and that's what probably got them aggravated," he said. The actions of one man who allegedly exposed himself in front of Reed and poured beer on her were uncalled for, he said. But any group is liable to have bad apples, he said. Others, however, find fault wholly with the group of surfers named in the lawsuit. "These guys were punks back in the '60s, and haven't changed. Slashing tires and vandalizing cars. It's about time their reign of terror ended," Tom Turner said in a Facebook comment on an article titled "Attorneys say class-action lawsuit could take down the Lunada Bay Boys for good." Mark Montenegro, in a Facebook comment on an article titled "Federal lawsuit claims Palos Verdes Estates surfers are a criminal street gang," said the Bay Boys deserve to be classified as a gang. "I have been out hiking out to the Dominator crash site and (the Bay Boys) threw rocks at me and my 5-year-old nephew from the cliffs. They could have killed one of us, so they deserve to be classified as such," Mr. Montenegro said. Dave Knight, in a Facebook comment on an article titled "More surfers harassed by Bay Boys want to join lawsuit, attorney says," laid blame at the feet of the city. "This criminal gang could not have terrorized the public had the PVEPD not turned a blind eye to their gang activity. The city should be sued for millions," Mr. Knight said. A Peninsula resident who refused to give his name to protect his business said the city of Palos Verdes Estates should be held at fault just as much as the Bay Boys themselves. "If anything, I think the city should take responsibility because they're the ones that should be governing this and they haven't," he said. "I think ultimately this could have been stopped a long time ago." PATRICK M. CONNELLY PC: Faces "Allah-Mensah" Suit in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Law Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C. The case is captioned Allah-Mensah, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Law Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16- cv-01053-PWG (D. Md., Greenbelt, April 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Paul W. Grimm. Law Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C. is law firm serving legal needs of individuals and businesses in and around Rockville, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Matthew Poretz, Esq. 918 S Curley Street Baltimore, MD 21224 Telephone: (706) 296 8099 E-mail: edporetz@gmail.com PENNSYLVANIA: Court Trims "Chimenti" Suit v. Dept of Corrections ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John R. Padova of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part pending motions in the case captioned, SALVATORE CHIMENTI, ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL, Case No. 15-3333 (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs have brought the class action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (the DOC), two companies that have contracted to provide medical services for the DOC, and officials and employees of both the DOC and the two companies, asserting claims arising from the medical care provided to DOC inmates who have been diagnosed with Hepatitis C. Plaintiffs Salvatore Chimenti, Daniel Leyva, and David Maldonado are all incarcerated in the DOC and all suffer from Hepatitis C viral infections. Defendant Correct Care Solutions began providing health care services for DOC facilities on September 1, 2014 and is the current health care provider for all DOC facilities. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons currently incarcerated in a DOC facility who have at least twelve weeks remaining in their sentences and are currently diagnosed with Hepatitis C. They assert four claims for relief. Count One asserts a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the DOC Defendants, Correct Care Solutions, and employees of Correct Care Solutions for deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners infected with Hepatitis C in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Count Two asserts a claim against the DOC Defendants, Correct Care Solutions, and employees of Correct Care Solutions for deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners infected with Hepatitis C in violation of Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Count III asserts a claim against all Defendants for medical malpractice under Pennsylvania law. Count IV asserts a claim against Wexford Health and Correct Care Solutions for medical malpractice and vicarious liability under Pennsylvania law. Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss brought by the DOC and officials and employees thereof, and a Motion to Dismiss or Sever brought by the medical care providers and their officials and employees. In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/gag298from Leagle.com, Judge Padova granted as to DOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count I of the Complaint and the Sec. 1983 claim asserted in that Count, and DOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count III of the Complaint is granted as to Wetzel and denied as to the DOC, Noel, Oppman, and Dreibelbis. The Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count I of the Complaint is granted as to Dancha, Hochberg, Scharff, Lehman and Correct Care Solutions and is denied as to Kephart, Weiner, and Wexford Health Source, Inc. The Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Sever is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs are represented by David Rudovsky, Esq. -- drudovsky@krlawphila.com -- KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, Stephen D. Brown, Esq. -- stephen.brown@dechert.com -- Christine C. Levin, Esq. - Christine.levin@dechert.com -- and Ethan Solove, Esq. -- ethan.solove@dechart.com -- DECHERT LLP Plaintiffs are also represented by: Angus R. Love, Esq. Su Ming Yeh, Esq. PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 718 Arch St # 304S Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215)925-2966 Defendants are represented by: Vincent R. Mazeski, Esq. CHIEF COUNSEL'S OFFICE 41 S Main St Middleburg, PA 17842 Tel: (570)837-1771 PEPSICO INC: "Taylor" Class Action Moved to S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Taylor, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PepsiCo, Inc., Case No. 2016-30235-CICI, was removed from the Volusia County Court, to the US District for the Southern District of Florida. The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Roy B. Dalton, Jr. PepsiCo operates worldwide beverage, snack and food businesses. The Company manufactures or uses contract manufacturers, markets and sells a variety of grain-based snacks, carbonated and non- carbonated beverages and foods in countries throughout the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P. FL 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318 0268 Facsimile: (954) 333 3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Monrose Moore, Esq. William Edward Grob, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 100 N Tampa St Ste 3600 Tampa, FL 33602-5867 Telephone: (813) 221 7262 E-mail: jennifer.moore@ogletreedeakins.com william.grob@ogletreedeakins.com PFIZER INC: Judge Grants Request to Toss Zoloft MDL --------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the federal judge presiding over the Zoloft multidistrict litigation has granted Pfizer's request to toss the MDL on the grounds that the plaintiffs couldn't muster an expert to illustrate a link between the drug and birth defects. On April 5, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania effectively ended the MDL -- pending any appeals to the Third Circuit -- which has been going on for over three years. According to Judge Rufe's order, the clerk was instructed to close all but 23 of the more than 300 remaining cases, which were against defendants other than Pfizer and co- defendant Wolters Kluwer Health. Lead plaintiffs' counsel Dianne Nast of NastLaw and Pfizer did not respond to requests for comment by press time. Judge Rufe wrote in her opinion that while it hasn't been proven that Zoloft doesn't cause birth defects, the attempts in court to prove that it does have failed. "Dismissal without prejudice under the circumstances of this MDL and in the face of this essential defect of proof would work against the fair administration of justice," Judge Rufe said. "The court recognizes that the final scientific verdict as to whether Zoloft can cause birth defects may not be delivered for many years. Nevertheless, plaintiffs chose when to file their cases, and the court concludes that for the plaintiffs who have continued to pursue their claims, the litigation gates must be closed." She added, "At the end of the day, plaintiffs have failed to raise a jury question on the necessary predicate to success in any case: that Zoloft was capable of causing their injuries." The plaintiffs have had difficulty in offering causation experts, with Judge Rufe shooting down one after the other. In December, Judge Rufe barred the testimony of the plaintiffs' general causation expert, Dr. Nicholas Jewell, a professor of biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley. Judge Rufe's ruling came after the dismissal of hundreds of noncardiac birth-defect cases in the litigation over the summer-- halving the litigation in size. Dr. Jewell was put forth as the expert for the remaining, cardiac-related cases. At its peak, the MDL numbered around 600 cases. As a statistics expert, Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell would have to explain why he believes that the positive associations between mothers' use of Zoloft and cardiac birth defects, reported in some studies, are accurate and not the result of statistical flaws or biases and reconcile those studies that claimed there was no increased risk of cardiac birth defects with his opinion. According to Judge Rufe's prior opinion, Dr. Jewell "has deviated from or downplayed certain well-established principles of his field, and has inconsistently applied methods and standards to the data so as to support his a priori opinion. It is improper for an expert to take a results-driven approach to a question, molding his methodology and selectively relying upon data so as to confirm his preconceived opinion." Earlier in the litigation, Judge Rufe had barred testimony from the plaintiffs' noncardiac birth injury expert, Dr. Anick Berard. PLAINVILLE, CT: State Defendants to File Revised Privilege Log -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DONALD WANZER, et al., v. TOWN OF PLAINVILLE, et al., Civ. No. 315CV00016 (AWT) (D. Conn.), Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of certain documents and ordered the State defendants to file, on or before April 20, 2016, a revised privilege log of the documents claimed to be privileged. Donald Wanzer, Jennifer Wanzer and Robin Mittasch, Trustee of The Companion Animal Trust for the Benefit of Luca, Individually and Ex Rel "Luca," a dog, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, commenced a putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, alleging violations of the plaintiffs' rights and due process and guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and challenging the constitutionality of the Connecticut Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs issued two subpoenas to Commissioner Reviczky seeking documents related to 33 statutory administrative appeals and hearings of 'disposal orders' that were subject to Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 22-358. The Commissioner contended that, in regards to Subpoena 2, a number of the records sought were privileged, and supplied a privilege log. The plaintiffs challenge the assertions of attorney-client privilege and the deliberative process privilege, and sought an order compelling the State defendants to either produce the documents at issue, or submit the records for an in camera review. Judge Merriam found that the State defendants' privilege log does not provide sufficient information for the court to determine whether the emails and attachments claimed to be protected under the attorney-client privilege are indeed communications between client and counsel, for the purpose of soliciting or rendering legal advice, intended to be and in fact kept confidential. Judge Merriam also found that the State defendants' privilege log is deficient as it pertains to claims of deliberative process privilege. Accordingly, Judge Merriam ordered the State defendants to file, on or before April 20, 2016, a revised privilege log with details sufficient to provide a meaningful review of the claimed attorney- client and deliberative process privileges. The State defendants were also ordered to provide a sampling of the records claimed to be privileged in the log for in camera review. A full-text copy of Judge Merriam's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/pzZdQefrom Leagle.com. Donald Wanzer, Jennifer Wanzer, Robin Mittasch, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Bruce Rosenthal, Richard Bruce Rosenthal, Esq. & Thompson G. Page, Law Offices of Thompson Gould Page, LLC. Town of Plainville, Matthew Catania, Donna Weinhoffer, Robert Lee, Defendant, represented by Emily E Holland -- eholland@hl-law.com -- Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Ondi A. Smith -- osmith@hl-law.com -- Howd & Ludorf, LLC & Thomas R. Gerarde -- tgerarde@hl-law.com -- Howd & Ludorf. Jonathan D. Chomick, Michael W. Mastrianni, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Chomick -- jchomick@mastseglaw.com -- Mastrianni & Seguljic. State of Connecticut, Defendant, represented by Matthew I. Levine, Attorney General's Office. Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Steven K. Reviczky, Steven K. Reviczky, Defendant, represented by Gail Suzanne Shane, Attorney General's Office & Matthew I. Levine, Attorney General's Office. POLLO OPERATIONS: Class Action Deal in "Daisy" Okayed ----------------------------------------------------- After a hearing held on March 28, 2016, Judge Sheri Polster Chappell granted final approval of the parties' settlement agreement in the case captioned DAISY, INC., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC., EDWARD PRIORE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, No. 2:14-CV-00564- SPC-CM (M.D. Fla.). The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved on December 3, 2015 and the court certified a class defined as "All persons who were successfully sent a facsimile image of a Pollo Tropical coupon between December 23, 2010 and January 5, 2011 by or on behalf of Pollo Operations, Inc." Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the defendant created a settlement fund totaling $2,150,000 and made it available to pay class member claims, to pay an incentive award of $15,000 to Daisy, Inc. for serving as the class representative, and to pay the class counsel's attorneys' fees in the amount of $537,500 plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred up to $43,000. The settlement agreement provides for the payment of $500 to each member of the class who submits a timely and valid claim form regardless of the number of fax advertisements received, subject only to a pro rata reduction in the event that the claims and other approved payments would exceed the total settlement fund. A full-text copy of Judge Chappell's March 30, 2016 final approval order and judgment is available at http://is.gd/LmTXKMfrom Leagle.com. Daisy, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Roy W. Foxall, Law Office of Roy W. Foxall, PA, Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice, David Max Oppenheim, Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca. Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sandra Jessica Millor -- sandra.millor@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Catherine A. Miller -- catherine.miller@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, pro hac vice, Jason L. Margolin -- jason.margolin@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Jeffrey J. Mayer -- jeffrey.mayer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, pro hac vice & Marc H. Kallish -- mkallish@ralaw.com -- Roetzel & Andress, LPA, pro hac vice. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Danny C. Reeves of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Plaintiff's motion to strike and motion for summary judgment, and granted PRA's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, DEDE STRATTON, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:13-147-DCR (E.D. Ky.). On June 20, 2012, PRA filed a collection action in Kentucky's Scott County District Court to collect on the account. The state court complaint alleged that Stratton owed PRA $2,630.95, with interest "at the rate of 8% per annum from December 19, 2008, until the date of judgment with 12% per annum thereafter until paid, plus court costs." Consequently, Stratton filed this against PRA, asserting that the company violated certain provisions of the FDCPA by attempting to collect on interest between the date GE charged-off her debt and the date that PRA bought it. When PRA filed a motion to dismiss the Class Action Complaint, Stratton filed an Amended Complaint to address issues outlined in the motion to dismiss. Originally, the Court dismissed Stratton's claims. However, on appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the matter, holding that Stratton "plausibly alleged that PRA violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, in addition to the plaintiff's motion to strike an exhibit relied upon by the defendant. PRA argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because: (i) the applicable Credit Card Agreement is governed by Utah law; (ii) Stratton cannot demonstrate that PRA's assignor waived its contractual or statutory rights to collect prejudgment interest on the underlying debt prior to PRA's purchase of the debt; (iii) certain sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") do not apply to the present circumstances; and (iv) PRA is protected by the bona fide error defense. Stratton contends that the Court cannot rely on the Credit Card Agreement in determining whether to grant PRA's motion for summary judgment because the document does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay. As a result, she contends that PRA has failed to produce evidence of its entitlement to contractual prejudgment interest for the time period prior to purchasing Stratton's debt. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/Z1ptekfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reeves found that because PRA does not present any evidence contradicting the assertions that Stratton is a consumer, PRA is a debt collector, and Stratton's debt arose out of an appropriate transaction, these facts are sufficiently established for the purposes of summary judgment. However, because Stratton has failed to demonstrate that PRA violated the FDCPA, the Court will deny her motion for summary judgment. Dede Stratton is represented by: James Hays Lawson, Esq. LAWSON AT LAW, PLLC 115 S Sherrin Ave #4 Louisville, KY 40207 Tel: (502)473-6525 - and - Kenneth J. Henry, Esq. HENRY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 800 Stone Creek Pkwy #1 Louisville, KY 40223 Tel: (502)245-9100 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is represented by Elizabeth M. Shaffer, Esq. -- elizabeth.shaffer@dinsmore.com -- and Joseph N. Tucker, Esq. -- joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com -- and R. Brooks Herrick, Esq. -- brooks.herrick@dinsmore.com -- DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP PREMIER TAMPA: Faces Suit for Alleged Violation of FLSA, Fla. Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Zeitouni, James Martin, DJems Antoine, Marcio Paz and Jonathan Menedez on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Premier Tampa Air, LLC, Defendant, Case 8:16-cv-00837-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla., April 7, 2016), seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the alleged failure of the Defendant to pay overtime wages and minimum wages and unpaid wages under Florida common law. The Defendant operates a parking service. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: 813-224-0431 Fax: 813-229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com jriley@wfclaw.com QAUKER OATS CO: Violated IFDCA, "Gates" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------- Barbara Gates, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01944-NLH-JS (D.N.J., April 7, 2016), asserts violation of the Illinois Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (IFDCA). Quaker Oats produces and sells oat-based food products. The company offers hot cereals; cold cereals; snack bars; cookies; rice snacks; and other products, including tortilla mixes, barley products, corn meals, biscuits, oatmeal raisins, real medleys, grits, oatmeal, and cut oats. It provides products through a network of chain grocery stores and pharmacies, and online retailers. The Quaker Oats Company, Inc. was formerly known as German Mills American Cereal Company and changed its name to The Quaker Oats Company, Inc. in 1901. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. Denittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 MARLTON, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797 9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com RIDDELL INC: April 14 Status Conference Set in Helmet Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Kris B. Mamula, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that the ImPACT concussion test is a "reliable and valuable tool," which has been used in 280 peer-reviewed studies and 145 independent studies, according to the Oakland-based company's website. But a 2013 lawsuit seeking class-action status and more than $5 million against football helmet maker Riddell Inc. alleges that one of those studies was biased and therefore the results were questionable. The case being heard in U.S. District Court in New Jersey was filed by parents, youth sports associations and others against Riddell over marketing claims made for a line of its helmets. Neither UPMC nor ImPACT are defendants in the case. The lawsuit said Riddell claimed the design of the helmets reduced the likelihood of a concussion. The plaintiffs say that wasn't true. The helmets with the "concussion reducing technology" cost consumers an extra $50 and the company's claims were based on research done at Pittsburgh health system UPMC. The lawsuit claims Riddell awarded a grant to UPMC for the three- year study of high school football players, funds that paid the salaries of lead authors Mark Lovell and Michael "Micky" Collins. A third researcher, Thad Ide, was then-vice president, research and product development at Rosemont, Ill.-based Riddell. Mr. Lovell and Mr. Collins helped develop the ImPACT test at UPMC in the late 1990s with Joseph Maroon, a UPMC neurosurgeon and the fifth of five researchers in the study. Academic officials say it's not unusual for industry to cover salary expenses in such research projects, which is acceptable as long as the arrangement and other potential conflicts of interest are disclosed. All of the potential conflicts among the researchers were disclosed when the study was published in the medical journal Neurosurgery in 2006. But there were other problems with the study, according to the lawsuit. The helmets used were not randomly assigned to players, and the collected data did not distinguish between the position of the player -- quarterback versus lineman, for example -- which could affect the likelihood of a concussion. And the standard- design helmets used were reconditioned, not new like the premium helmets tested. The result was the study reached a "pre-determined conclusion" about safety, according to the lawsuit. Riddell has denied the claims, according to court documents, and UPMC disputes how Riddell used its research in marketing the premium helmets, but defended its study. "We stand behind the research, which was the first of its kind," UPMC spokeswoman Susan Manko said. "We applaud anyone doing research in this area." "Nowhere in the state can a patient find more certified athletic trainers and board-certified, licensed physical therapists, more research into injuries that apply to clinical use" than at UPMC, she wrote in an email. Mr. Lovell is now chief scientific officer at ImPACT and Mr. Collins is executive director of the UPMC Sports Medicine Concussion Program, which treated more than 17,000 concussions last year. The typical patient seen at the clinic is an adolescent girl who got hit in the head with a softball, Mr. Collins said. Meanwhile, the Riddell lawsuit continues to wend its way through court, with a status conference scheduled April 14 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, who recently granted Riddell extra time to produce more than 85,000 pages of documents requested by plaintiffs. RNC INDUSTRIES: "Valerio" Suit Has Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the case captioned, JOSE VALERIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RNC INDUSTRIES, LLC and RICHARD TONYES, in his individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. CV 14-3761 (LDW) (AKT) (E.D.NY.). Jose Valerio worked for Defendants from on or about April 2011 through May 2014. During Plaintiff's employment, his principal responsibilities entailed manual labor, including working as a welder, mechanic, and driver. Plaintiff generally worked five to six days per week at a rate of $18 to $21 per hour. He brings the wage and hour action, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, against Defendants RNC Industries, LLC (RNC) and Richard Tonyes in both his individual and professional capacities pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., the New York Labor Law (NYLL) Sections 160, 195, 652(1) and 12 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Sec.142. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants implemented a policy in which they refused to pay their employees both the required minimum wage rate for all hours worked as well as the required overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff moves for (1) conditional certification as a collective action of "All other current and former similarly situated non- managerial employees, employed since June 16, 2011;" and (2) Court approval of Plaintiff's proposed Notice of Pendency to potential collective action members, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). See Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). Defendants oppose the motion asserting, among other things, that Plaintiff has not identified a specific common policy or practice which violates the law. In her Memorandum and Order dated March 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/AHLm0lfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tomlinson found that Plaintiff has met his burden to show that the proposed class members satisfy the requirements of Section 216(b). The Court directs Defendants to produce a list of the names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations and dates of employment for all non-managerial employees who worked at RNC Industries, LLC dating back to June 16, 2011 within 14 days and the parties to submit an agreed upon Notice to the Court by April 13, 2016. Jose Valerio is represented by Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. -- atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. -- mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Anthony Patrick Malecki, Esq. -- apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Dong Phuong Van Nguyen, Esq. -- dvn@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC RNC Industries, Inc. is represented by: Christopher A. Smith, Esq. Jonathan Michael Bardavid, Esq. TRIVELLA & FORTE, LLP 311 Mamaroneck Ave # 170, White Plains, NY 10605 Tel: (914)949-9075 RYAN TRANSPORTATION: "Bell" Suit Sent to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Jeff Bell, Plaintiff, v. Ryan Transportation Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 15-9857-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum granted the motion filed by Ryan Transportation Service, Inc. to compel arbitration and stayed the judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration process. Jeff Bell filed a wage and hour suit individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ryan Transportation moved to dismiss or stay the case and to compel arbitration on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint was filed in contravention of the terms of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement executed by the parties that covers the claims asserted by the plaintiff. Bell contended that the court lacks jurisdiction to compel arbitration because the Federal Arbitration Act exempts transportation workers from its provisions. In the alternative, Bell also contended that the court should strike as unenforceable certain discovery, attorney fee and confidentiality provisions in the agreement because those provisions prevent him from effectively vindicating his rights under the FLSA. Judge Lungstrum found that Bell's job duties, as a freight broker employed by a logistics company specializing in transportation management services, are not sufficiently necessary and related to interstate commerce as to classify him as a transportation worker for purposes of the exemption. The judge also rejected Bell's challenges to certain discovery, attorney fee and confidentiality provisions in the agreement. A full-text copy of Judge Lungstrum's March 31, 2016 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/0gQD2Jfrom Leagle.com. Jeff Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Edward Osman, Osman & Smay, LLP. Ryan Transportation Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian N. Woolley -- bwoolley@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Tammy M. Somogye -- tsomogye@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP. SAN DIEGO RETIREMENT: Cal. Ct. App. Rules on Appeals v. SDCERS -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal was brought before the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One for three consolidated lawsuits against the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (SDCERS), to wit: Baidya v. San Diego City Retirement System, No. 37-2011- 00096237-CU-PO-CTL (Baidya), Lancaster v. San Diego City Retirement System, No. 37-2011-00096238-CU-PO-CTL (Lancaster) and Lenhart v. San Diego City Retirement System, No. 37-2011-00096587- CU-BC-CTL (Lenhart). The lawsuits were filed by the employees impacted by the actions taken by SDCERS concerning the funding of the shortfall for pension service credits purchased by employees of the City of San Diego and of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. After the 2010 ruling in City of San Diego v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 69, which concluded that SDCERS acted unlawfully in deciding to charge the City for a shortfall in funding of pension service credits, SDCERS had required the employees who purchased those pension service credits to make up the funding shortfall. The SDCERS also took certain actions concerning the funding of the shortfall for pension service credits purchased by employees of the Airport Authority. The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred: (1) in sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer in the Lenhart action to the breach of contract cause of action and the cause of action for mandamus relief; (2) by sustaining the demurrer in the Lancaster action to the fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty; (3) by sustaining a demurrer to one of the breach of fiduciary causes of action common to all three actions; and (4) in granting summary judgment on the two remaining breach of fiduciary causes of action common to all three actions. The Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's judgments except only for the judgment in the Lenhart action with respect to the breach of contract cause of action. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the breach of contract cause of action because the facts pled in the Lenhart complaint, if subsequently proven, would establish that SDCERS breached the service credit purchase agreements with safety member employees who are subject to reformation and rescission of their agreements under SDCERS' Board Rule 4.90. The appealed case is captioned ANANTA BAIDYA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent, No. D066678 (Cal. Ct. App.). A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 30, 2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/l8RZucfrom Leagle.com. Law Office of Michael A. Conger and Michael A. Conger for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Kirby, Noonan, Lance & Hoge, David J. Noonan -- dnoonan@knlh.com -- Steven W. Sanchez -- ssanchez@knlh.com -- and Micaela P. Banach -- mbanach@knlh.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. SAN DIEGO RETIREMENT: Judgments Affirmed in "Abbe" Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- An appeal was brought before the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One for two lawsuits against the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (SDCERS), to wit: Abitria v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, No. 37-2011- 00096899-CU-PO-CTL (Abitria) and Abbe v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, No. 37-2011-00102161-CU-NP-CTL (Abbe). The lawsuits were filed by the employees impacted by SDCERS' adoption of "Board Rule 4.90", under which employees who purchased service credits in the pension service credits (PSC) program during the window period beginning August 15, 2003, but who had not retired from City service as of November 19, 2007 would bear the entire cost of funding the service credits. Rule 4.90 was adopted by SDCERS in response to the 2010 ruling in City of San Diego v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 69, which concluded that SDCERS acted unlawfully in deciding to charge the City for a shortfall in funding of pension service credits. The employees contended that the trial court erred: (1) in sustaining the demurrers filed by SDCERS and the City to the employees' cause of action seeking equitable relief, on the basis of extrinsic fraud, from the judgment in the City of San Diego opinion; and (2) in ruling that summary judgment was warranted in favor of SDCERS, on the basis of statutory immunity, on two causes of action alleging that SDCERS breached its fiduciary duties to employees. The Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the employees' arguments lack merit. The appellate court held that the facts alleged by the employees do not constitute a basis for equitable relief from judgment based on extrinsic fraud, and the trial court accordingly properly sustained SDCERS' and the City's demurrers to that cause of action in both actions. The appellate court also found that SDCERS established that the breach of fiduciary duty causes of action were barred by Government Claims Act immunity, even though they are based on a constitutional provision. The appealed case is captioned THOMAS ABBE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. D066632 (Cal. Ct. App.). A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 30, 2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/ziLr1ifrom Leagle.com. Smith, Steiner, Vanderpool & Wax, Ann M. Smith -- asmith@ssvwlaw.com -- and Kathryn A. Schultz -- kschultz@ssvwlaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Jan I. Goldsmith, City Attorney, and Walter C. Chung, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent City of San Diego. Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge, David J. Noonan -- dnoonan@knlh.com -- Steven W. Sanchez -- ssanchez@knlh.com -- and Micaela P. Banach -- mbanach@knlh.com -- for Defendant and Respondent The Board of Administration of the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Philadelphia Court Rejects Paxil Case --------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the first of several Paxil birth-defect cases expected to hit trial may have ended abruptly, but court watchers do not expect the litigation to be coming to an end so soon. On April 4, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth Powell Jr. dismissed the case Rader v. Smithkline Beecham, after finding that the plaintiff did not present enough evidence to send the case to the jury. The decision came after about five years of pretrial venue issues and two weeks of trial. The ruling specifically hinged on the judge's determination that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show the prescribing physician would have made a different prescribing decision based on additional information the plaintiffs have argued should have been included on the drug's label. According to court watchers, because the ruling hinged on a very fact-specific issue, it is unlikely the dismissal will have a broad effect on the eight related Paxil birth-defect cases that remain in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. "You can't extrapolate from this particular case to say others will end up the same way," said Duane Morris attorney Alan Klein - - AKlein@duanemorris.com -- who represents both plaintiffs and defendants in pharmaceutical products liability cases. "A lot will depend on the testimony of the treating and prescribing physicians and what went into his or her decision. It's a very fact-specific inquiry." Jamie Sheller -- jlsheller@sheller.com -- of Sheller P.C., who handled prior Paxil birth-defect cases and has served as liaison counsel to the state's mass tort litigation, but was not involved in the Rader case, said many of the doctors in the cases she handled, including a suit that came to a $2.5 million verdict in 2009, had been "upset and concerned" when confronted with additional prescribing information about the drug. "That's true in a lot of pharma cases," Ms. Sheller said. Adam Peavy of Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan Heckaman in Houston, who represented plaintiff Braden Rader, said he plans to appeal Judge Powell's order, which, he contended, was in error under state case law. According to Mr. Peavy, Judge Powell had previously ruled to exclude any mention of the defendant's subsequent remedial measures, which are typically not allowed as evidence in establishing liability. That ruling, Mr. Peavy said, required the court to exclude portions of the prescribing doctor's videotaped testimony in which Mr. Peavy asked the doctor about whether the doctor would have changed his prescribing decision based on a subsequent label change. Mr. Peavy said that while generally subsequent remedial measures, such as label changes, are not allowed into evidence for liability purposes, there is an exception when establishing a prescribing doctor's decisions. "It's a pretty simple appeal," Mr. Peavy said. He added that he is seeking guidance from Judge Arnold New, who is supervising the mass tort program, about whether the evidentiary ruling will apply to other cases, which could necessitate a stay in the litigation. According to Mr. Peavy, the ruling could cause further liability issues if applied to all cases, the next of which is expected to begin in May. Although GSK did not specifically comment on how the recent dismissal may affect the eight additional cases gearing up for trial in Philadelphia, the company said in a statement that it has a strong defense against the heart defect claims. SPECTRUM BRANDS: Faces "Rosner" Class Action in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Spectrum Brands, Inc. The case is captioned Yisroel Rosner, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and John Does (1-100), the Plaintiff, v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-01693 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, April 7, 2016). Spectrum Brands manufactures and sells small appliances, consumer batteries, lawn and garden, electric shaving and grooming, residential locksets, pet supplies, and household insect control. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Madison, Wisconsin. Spectrum Brands, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. The Plaintiff appears pro se. SPOTIFY: Settles Royalties Dispute with NMPA for $21 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Thurston, writing for Business and Administration Information, reports that music publishers will get royalties for songs streamed on Spotify under an agreement reached with the National Music Publisher's Association (NMPA). The deal calls for Spotify to pay about $21 million to publishers and songwriters -- $16 million for royalty payments and $5 million for a bonus fund for those who opt in to the arrangement. The deal covers all content on Spotify from its inception in the United States until June 30, 2017. Artists can opt in during a 90-day period beginning in early April. Under the agreement, they will receive a portion of the bonus fund, be able to use an online portal for claiming royalties and get some royalties for songs that remain unclaimed, based on how many times Spotify played them. The streaming service also agreed to improve the accuracy and efficiency of its royalty payment system and will allow publishers to enter into agreements with Spotify, a move likely to avoid future lawsuits. "We have always been committed to paying songwriters and publishers every penny," Spotify spokesman Jonathan Prince said in a statement. The agreement follows the filing of several class-action lawsuits against Spotify over unpaid royalties. Those lawsuits seek hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, and the latest deal could impact their outcome. The NMPA settlement will likely require participants to waive their right to recover any money from legal proceedings against Spotify. Late last year, musician David Lowery filed a $150 million class action lawsuit against Spotify claiming the company knowingly distributes copyrighted content. Mr. Lowery, who has become one of the most vocal critics of the music industry, says the streaming service has illegally hosted songs by his band Cracker. As part of the class action suit, he will represent a group of more than 100 members similarly angered by the service. While the NMPA settlement could ward off future litigation, some industry experts question whether it will benefit artists because the deal was struck without court oversight. Lawyers involved with MrLowery's lawsuit advise anyone considering joining the settlement to consult their own attorney first. By agreeing to the deal, parties likely will be prohibited from suing Spotify in the future. SSM HEALTH: Violated ERISA, "Feather" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------- Lisa Feather, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the SSM Plan, the Plaintiff, v. SSM Health, a Missouri Non-profit Corporation, the Pension Committee for the Retirement Plan For SSB Employees, John and Jane Does 1-20, members of the pension committee for the retirement plan for SSM employees, each an individual, and John And Jane Does 21-40, each an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00393 (S.D. Ill., Benton Div., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover an order requiring SSM Health to comply with Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and afford protections of ERISA with respect to SSM Health's defined benefit pension plans, as well as an order finding that the Church Plan exemption, as claimed by SSM Health, is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. SSM Health and its subsidiaries, by and through its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, operates a healthcare conglomerate in Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin and Oklahoma and provides healthcare services in the communities it serves. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC 8816 Manchester Road St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 258 0212 E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com - and - Karen L. Handorf, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408 4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Erin M. Riley, Esq. Ron Kilgard, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623 1900 Facsimile: (206) 623 3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com eriley@kellerrohrback.com rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com SUN-MAID GROWERS: "Talavera" Suit Has Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the case captioned, JONATHON TALAVERA, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.). On June 3, 2015, Jonathon Talavera filed a complaint against Sun- Maid Growers of California alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), various California labor code and wage orders, and the California Unfair Business Practices Act, codified at Business and Professions Code Sections 17200. Plaintiff is a temporary worker who was employed by defendant at its Kingsburg plant for a total of 18 days in August and September of 2014. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant required him to perform certain tasks -- specifically, donning safety and sanitary gear, and washing hands -- for which he was not properly compensated. Plaintiff claims that these practices constitute a violation of the FLSA because they resulted in him and other similarly situated employees working more than eight hours in a single day without receiving overtime compensation. Plaintiff is currently seeking conditional certification of a class of similarly situated employees pursuant to Sec. 216(b) of the FLSA. Plaintiff defines the FLSA class of "All individuals who are currently employed, or have formerly been employed, as nonexempt hourly employees at defendants' food processing facilities in California, at any time within three years prior to the filing of the original complaint until resolution of the actions." In the Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/Y6Bz8n from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd found that although the evidence presented by plaintiff is certainly minimal, he has satisfied the low burden imposed on him at the notice stage for conditional certification. Jonathan Talavera is represented by: Cory Lee, Esq. THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC P.O Box 1021 Unionville, PA 19375 Tel: (610)324-2848 Sun Maid Growers of California is represented by Molly L. Kaban, Esq. -- mkaban@hansonbridgett.com -- and Sandra Lynn Rappaport, Esq. -- srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP TAKATA CORP: Triple D Suit Moved from E.D. Tenn. to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- Triple D Corporation, doing business as: Knox Auto Parts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd., American Honda Motor Company Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., and Subaru of America, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00135, has been transferred from US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida Southern District Ct. assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21229-FAM to the proceeding. Takata Corp. is an automotive parts company based in Japan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin C. Fields, Esq. Christopher Stucky, Esq. STUCKY & FIELDS, LLC 214 West 18th Street, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 66108 Telephone: (816) 659 9970 Facsimile: (816) 659 9969 E-mail: ben@stuckyfields.com chris@stuckyfields.com - and - Frank B. Ulmer, Esq. R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300 P.O. Box 505 Charleston, SC 29451 Telephone: (205) 238 6757 E-mail: fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com TITLEMAX OF TEXAS: Faces "Torres" Suit Over FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- LYDIA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. TITLEMAX OF TEXAS, INC. and, TRACY YOUNG, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00443-SS (W.D. Tex., April 7, 2016), seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. TITLEMAX OF TEXAS, INC. operates a company primarily engaged in the business of providing personal loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. Daniel B. Ross, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 474-7677 Fax: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com TOKANA CAFE: Faces "Astudillo" Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Tokana Cafe Bar Restorant Inc. The case is captioned Carmelo Astudillo Barrera, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tokana Cafe Bar Restorant Inc., doing business as: Little Rascal, Halil Gundogdu, Murat Atilgan, and Fuat F. Feyzioglu, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02649 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, April 8, 2016). Tokana Cafe is as drinking establishment bar located in New York. The Plaintiff appears pro se. TRI-VALLEY CORP: Court Dismisses K&L Gates From Investors' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted K&L Gates' motion to dismiss and motion to strike claim 8 in the case captioned, STEVEN SIEGAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. G. THOMAS GAMBLE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03570-RS (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Steven Siegal, David Groblebe, Christian Wipf, and James Rybicki were among the investors who purchased securities in the Tri-Valley Corporation Opus I Drilling Program, L.P. (Opus). They assert a host of claims grounded in fraud on behalf of a putative class arising from the sale of Opus securities and the ensuing bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Opus and its general managing partner, Tri-Valley Corporation (TVC). Plaintiffs also accuse two unlicensed and unregistered securities broker-dealers, Dr. Alfred Lopez and Behrooz Sarafraz, of various securities violations. Specifically, they claim Lopez and Sarafraz operated as Opus "aggregators" -- separate business entities that pooled small investments to buy Opus units. In the same complaint, plaintiffs assert a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against K&L Gates, LLP (KLG), which represented both Opus and TVC throughout their respective bankruptcies. On June 27, 2013, the named plaintiffs filed this complaint as a putative class action against 15 defendants, including ten former officers and directors of TVC; two allegedly unlicensed and unregistered broker-dealers; and KLG. The bulk of plaintiffs' complaint focuses on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of California and federal securities laws allegedly committed by the O & D defendants and the securities broker-dealer defendants. Lopez, Sarafraz, and KLG moved successfully to dismiss the plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint (FACC). Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend all claims against Lopez and Sarafraz, but only as to one claim against KLG: aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Along with its motion to dismiss the FACC, KLG filed a special motion to strike plaintiffs' claims pursuant to California's anti- SLAPP statute, which was denied. Plaintiffs elected to file a SACC -- the subject of the three motions at issue now. In the motion, Plaintiffs contend that Lopez and Sarafraz omitted material information and made materially false statements about Opus's business operations and financial health when they promoted Opus securities. In his Order dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/hEolU7 from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that KLG has satisfied both criteria to warrant specially striking plaintiffs' eighth claim for relief. Plaintiffs' claim against KLG must also be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the agent's immunity rule and litigation privilege prevent plaintiffs' claims against KLG for its affirmative conduct. Plaintiffs are represented by Edward Scott Zusman, Esq. -- ezusman@mzclaw.com -- John R. Fabry, Esq. -- efabry@mzclaw.com -- and Kevin K. Eng, Esq. -- keng@mzclaw.com -- MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP Certain of the Defendants are represented by Simona Gurevich Strauss, Esq. -- gstrauss@stblaw.com -- and Stephen Patrick Blake, Esq. -- sblake@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER BARTLETT LLP K&L Gates LLP is represented by Joseph Patrick McMonigle -- JMcMonigle@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP, -- JSullivan@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP and Kate G Kimberlin -- KKimberlin@longlevit.com -- Long and Levit LLP. TURNER RESTAURANTS: Court Sends Waitstaff Suit to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Mexican Restaurants Inc. (MRI)'s motion to compel arbitration and denied the motion for conditional certification of a class of current and former employees of MRI-owned Casa Oles within the three years before the action was filed in the case captioned, BRIAN WHITE and ROSLYN SCHOFFSTALL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORKEY TURNER, TURNER RESTAURANTS, d/b/a CASA OLE MEXICAN RESTAURANTS, and MEXICAN RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. H-15-1485 (S.D. Tex.). Brian White and Roslyn Schoffstall worked as waitstaff at a Houston-area Casa Ole restaurant which is owned and operated by Corkey Turner and Turner Restaurants under a franchise agreement with Mexican Restaurants Inc. (MRI). White and Schoffstall allege that the same illegal compensation practices they were subject to are applied at all 32 of the Casa Ole restaurants, both those owned and operated by MRI and those franchised and owned and operated by Turner Restaurants. These representative plaintiffs moved for conditional collective- action certification and issuance of notice to those who work or worked at any of these Casa Ole restaurants over the past three years. On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff named as additional Defendants John/Jane Doe 1 through 5. After the motion for conditional certification was filed, but before it was granted, MRI moved to compel McInnis and other MRI- owned Casa Ole restaurant members who are members of the putative collective action to arbitrate their FLSA claims against MRI. In support, MRI asserted and presented evidence that it required all employees during the relevant period to sign written agreements requiring arbitration of all employment-related disputes with MRI, including FLSA claims. Turner Restaurants did require signed arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. White and Schoffstall argue in response that the court should deny the motion to compel because: 1) MRI has not and cannot produce a written arbitration agreement for McInnis or for every putative class member, as the best evidence rule requires; 2) some putative class members may be minors and therefore lack the capacity to enter into an enforceable arbitration agreement; and 3) some putative class members may not speak or read English, making any agreement unenforceable. In his Memorandum and Order dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/NMMohwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosenthal concluded that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the FLSA action against MRI. MRI has produced evidence of the agreement's contents and the good-faith reasons explaining the inability to produce it in this litigation. White, Schoffstall, and McInnis have not put the existence of the agreement in issue. They have not unequivocally denied that McInnis signed an arbitration agreement or the contents of that agreement, much less produce evidence supporting that denial. Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Meyerson, Esq. Todd Mitchell Fine, Esq. Chance Dean Weldon, Esq. THE MEYERSON LAW FIRM PC 2224 Walsh Tarlton Ln #120 Austin, TX 78746 Tel: (512)330-9001 Defendants are represented by Daniel N. Ramirez, Esq. -- dramirez@montyramirezlaw.com -- and Phillip Adam Baggett, Esq. - pbaggett@montyramirezlaw.com -- MONTY AND RAMIREZ LLP UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Decertification Bid in "O'Connor" Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment or decertification in the case captioned DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC (N.D. Cal.). Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, Matthew Manahan, and Elie Gurfinkel brought a class action against Uber Technologies, Inc., alleging that Uber misclassifies drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The court certified the class action to bring two claims: (1) a tips claim, in which the plaintiffs allege that Uber represented that tips are included in the fare but do not give the total amount of the tip to the drivers, and (2) an expense reimbursement claim. Uber moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' tips claim, contending that this claim is fundamentally based on "Uber's alleged misrepresentations to riders that a 'tip is included' in the fare." Uber also argued that decertification is appropriate because there is no ascertainability, commonality, predominance, or superiority. Judge Chen held that the elements of a misrepresentation claim are not at issue because the plaintiffs' theory is not that Uber misrepresented or committed fraud by advertising that tip is included in the fare. The judge instead found that the plaintiffs' argument is that Uber was being truthful when it made such representations, and that because Uber charges a tip it is required to distribute the tip in its entirety to the drivers. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's March 30, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/It26K4from Leagle.com. Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Ben Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C.,Matthew David Carlson -- mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- Carlson Legal Services, Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano, Lichten and Liss- Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services,Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. Matthew Manahan, Elie Gurfinkel, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services & Shannon Liss- Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. Ronald Gillette, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Adelaide Pagano, Lichten and Liss- Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice & Andrew Paul Lee -- alee@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Marcellus Antonio McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theane D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law, Brandon J. Stoker -- bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Debra Wong Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, John C. Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell -- kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Stephen A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen Luther Taeusch -- staeusch@valdezlawgroup.com -- Valdez Law Group LLP. 7x7 Executive Transportation LLC, Defendant, represented by James Parton, III, Parton & Sell PC. Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry -- mcherry@cherry-law.com -- Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC. Ricardo Del Rio, Greg Fisher, Movant, represented by Christopher James Hamner -- chamner@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices, APC. Steven Price, Interested Party, represented by Christopher John Morosoff, Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff. City of Cleveland, Ohio, Interested Party, represented by Carl E Meyer, City of Cleveland. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Appeal Drivers Class Certification Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber Technologies Inc. has a chance to slam the brakes on a major labor class action that challenges the company's classification of drivers as independent contractors. On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it would allow the ride-hailing company to appeal U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's December order certifying a class of approximately 240,000 Uber drivers in California. The decision is a victory for Uber in a case where little has gone its way. In a petition to appeal the class-certification order, the company's legal team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher accused Judge Chen of setting the stage for a "runaway class action" with radical rulings that crippled its arbitration clause. "[D]istrict courts are not supposed to embark on seek-and-destroy missions in which they resort to inventing creative means of obliterating arbitration agreements," wrote lawyers led by Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous Jr. The development presumably hits pause on a trial that had been scheduled for June in the Northern District of California and means that Uber will get a chance to argue that drivers claims should be heard in individual, private arbitration, pursuant to the terms of its driver agreement. "We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit has granted this petition to review the lower court's order," the company said in an emailed statement. The decision to take up the appeal was made by Ninth Circuit Judges William Canby, Edward Leavy and Sandra Ikuta. Their one- page order cited the court's 2005 ruling in Chamberlan v. Ford Motor. That held class-certification orders should be reviewed only when they sound a "death knell" for the losing party, raise an unsettled issue of law or are "manifestly erroneous." Also on April 5, the Ninth Circuit set oral arguments for June 16 in a series of cases challenging Chen's decisions that the arbitration clauses in Uber's driver agreements are not enforceable. Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who is representing the plaintiffs in the main driver suit, O'Connor v. Uber, could not immediately be reached for comment. In a petition opposing the appeal, Liss-Riordan called Uber's objections to Judge Chen's order "histrionic protests" and said the case did not present an unsettled or fundamental issue of class action law. UNITED STATES: Hospital Operators' Suit Over TRICARE Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marian Blank Horn of the Court of Federal Claims granted motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the case captioned, INGHAM REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSC, Consolidated with Case No. 12-CV-4048-JSC, No. 12-CV-4059-JSC., 12-CV-4064-JSC, 12-CV-4066-JSC, 12-CV-4133-JSC, 12-CV-4250-JSC (Fed. Cl.). Plaintiffs Ingham Regional Medical Center (Ingham), Bay Regional Medical Center (BRMC), McLaren Northern Michigan (McLaren), Gifford Medical Center, Inc. (Gifford), and Lakewood Health System (Lakewood) operate hospitals that participated in the TRICARE program, a federal program providing health care to uniformed service members, retirees, and certain others. Plaintiffs allege that from at least August 1, 2003 to May 1, 2009 (the Relevant Period), the defendant, United States of America, acting through the Secretary of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) in his official capacity as operator of TRICARE, underpaid them for certain services they provided as part of the TRICARE program, which plaintiffs allege resulted in the breach of two contracts and violations of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. They seek to bring a class action on behalf of every hospital in the United States that (1) provided outpatient services to individuals enrolled in the TRICARE program during the Relevant Period, and (2) participated in the defendant's Discretionary Payment Process, described below, announced April 25, 2011. Plaintiffs estimate their proposed class size to be approximately 5,200 hospitals. Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (2012) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). In her Opinion dated March 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/AFOP57from Leagle.com, Judge Horn concluded that plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead any facts showing that the reimbursement rates instituted by the Interim Final and Final Rules represented an unreasonable interpretation of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1079(j)(2), and that plaintiffs' claims based on 10 U.S.C. Sections 1079 and 1086 and 32 C.F.R Sections 199.4 and 199.7 fail. Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander John Pires, Jr., Esq. PIRES COOLEY 4401Q Street NW Washington, DC 20007 USA is represented by: Phyllis Jo Baunach, Esq. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202)353-1555 VANCOUVER, WA: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel in Inmate Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel in the case captioned, RICHARD BURGESS, Plaintiff, v. CHUCK ATKINS et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-05895-RJB-JRC (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff Richard Burgess, who was previously incarcerated at Clark County Jail, proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis, filed in the civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff alleges that the Clark County Jail is overcrowded, resulting in unsanitary conditions, and that his right to access to the courts has been violated. Plaintiff alleges that while housed at Clark County Jail, he has been subjected to conditions of confinement that violate his constitutional rights. Plaintiff maintains that the Clark County Jail was overcrowded, which has caused plaintiff stress. Included in his amended complaint is also a request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff alleges that he is requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent plaintiff and other inmates in his suit, which he alleges is a class action lawsuit. Plaintiff also moves to change defendants' names to defendants Atkins, Bishop, Clark County and the City of Vancouver. Plaintiff also seeks a motion to stay not dismiss because the Clark County Jail has refused to let plaintiff use the original law library. In his Second Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/dfntgtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Creatura declined to serve plaintiff's amended complaint because plaintiff has failed to allege any facts supporting personal participation against the named defendants including allegations that deal with any claim of deliberate indifference or denial of access to the courts. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to allege that his lack of access to the courts caused him any actual injury. The Court gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by April 15, 2016, to cure the deficiencies in his complaint. The City of Vancouver, Defendant, is represented by: Daniel G Lloyd, Esq. VANCOUVER CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 415 W 6th St Vancouver, WA 98660 Tel: (360)487-8600 VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Action Over BlueTec Diesel Models ------------------------------------------------------------ BenzInsider reports that in February, Mercedes-Benz was dragged into a class action suit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the suit filed by Texas law firm Hagens Berman, it was alleged that the three-pointed star brand used a cheat device to manipulate the emission figures of its BlueTec diesel models. The emission issue pointed out by the lawsuit was similar to the controversy that Volkswagen got itself into last year, which led to the resignation of its former CEO Martin Winterkorn. According to Autoblog, Hagens Berman claimed that they tested the BlueTec vehicles of Mercedes at highway speeds. Then they found out that it consistently failed to meet emission standards. The law firm cited instances also during low temperature testings wherein the outputs they derived from the BlueTec models of Mercedes were 8.1 to 19.7 times higher than the highway emission standard. Thus, they strongly opposed the advertising of the company as having "the world's cleanest and most advanced diesel." As a result of the class suit, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked Mercedes for more information regarding the matter. The source said EPA is yet to launch an official probe about the issue. Late last year, Mercedes already commented about the emission controversy it was facing, which coincided with the same issues encountered by Volkswagen. The luxury car maker straight out denied the allegations, and stated that they have been faithfully complying to all the environmental requirements mandated by law. Mercedes maintained its position when news of the lawsuit from Hagens Berman broke out. However, it declined to comment further on the ongoing proceedings. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Meets with Dealers Amid Emissions Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that it was supposed to be the week's best show in Vegas. A fireworks display. The long-awaited confrontation between beleaguered U.S. Volkswagen dealers and besieged factory representatives at the brand's make meeting during the NADA convention. Volkswagen rolled out its big gun. Global VW brand chief Herbert Diess was in town, and when was the last time such a high- ranking visitor from Wolfsburg showed up for an NADA make meeting? Outside Ballrooms A and B at the Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino, a large knot of reporters and others waited anxiously for news from behind those big stateroom doors. But alas, no fireworks. After 90 minutes, VW dealers calmly filed out of their April 2 make meeting with promises of more cars to jump-start sales. But they had little new information about how VW planned to rectify the damage its emissions scandal has done to the brand and its retailers. Attendees said Mr. Diess and other executives offered no details about technical fixes for the diesel crisis or compensation for consumers, citing a government gag order. Neither did the executives discuss the prospect of settlement talks with dealers, who a day earlier formed a committee to lead negotiations with VW on compensation for losses incurred by retailers since the scandal erupted in September. "I would title the meeting "We're working on it,'" said Steve Kalafer, owner of the 17-franchise Flemington Car & Truck Country, which includes a VW store in Flemington, N.J. "There were no promises other than broad statements that "We're working on it' and "We're doing our best,'" Mr. Kalafer said. "This is nothing more than more of the same." VW executives did say they would send more products this year in an attempt to help dealers through what is shaping up as a very tough 2016. VW brand sales fell 12.5 percent in the first quarter. Dealers will get an extra 20,000 Tiguan compact crossovers and 20,000 additional Beetle Classic compact cars this year compared with what was planned, said Matthew Welch, general manager of Auburn Volkswagen near Seattle. Next year, VW will send 75,000 Golf SportWagen Alltracks to the U.S. after shipping 15,000 here for its fourth quarter launch, Welch said. Dealers said that the 2017 Alltrack commitment was double what VW had planned. Longer term, VW dealers need annual U.S. sales of around 500,000 by 2017 or 2018 to be the brand's new "baseline," Alan Brown, chairman of the brand's U.S. dealer council, told reporters after the make meeting. VW brand sales last year were just less than 350,000. "That's where [Volkswagen] AG is going to start to see wins; that's where the dealer network will really start to see a return on sales," said Brown, general manager of Lewisville Volkswagen near Dallas. Volume targets weren't discussed in the meeting, but Mr. Diess said in a statement to reporters that VW wanted to "grow the volume consistently above past levels" in the U.S. "We're looking forward to really managing through the crisis and then really relaunching the brand and looking at a much more positive future," Diess told reporters. What he meant by "relaunching" is unclear. Michael DiFeo, dealer principal at Linden Volkswagen in Roselle, N.J., said any branding shifts should reinforce a message of "price-competitive German engineering." Meanwhile, the six dealers tapped to negotiate a settlement with VW hope to begin talks as "soon as possible," said Jason Kuhn, head of the Dealer Investment Committee, an offshoot of the dealer council, and chairman of Kuhn Automotive Group in Tampa, Fla. The group was formed to seek compensation for losses incurred by dealers and reduce the risk that breakaway dealers will sue VW. On Wednesday, April 6, Napleton Automotive Group broke rank with dealer council leaders and sued VW on behalf of its three VW dealerships. The suit, which seeks class action status, alleges VW defrauded dealers by rigging diesel vehicles and also claims VW violated various state and federal laws designed to protect dealers. VW CREDIT: "Ballew" Suit Transferred from D. Mont. to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Will Ballew, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VW Credit, Case No. 9:15-cv-00133, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv- 01829-CRB to the proceeding. VW Credit provides financial products and services to automobile dealers and customers in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Heenan, Esq. BISHOP AND HEENAN 1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1 Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839 9091 Facsimile: (406) 839 9092 E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com - and - Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq. Bechtold Law Firm PO Box 7051 Missoula, MT 59807 E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net The Defendant is represented by: Marc A. Lackner, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543 8700 Facsimile: (415) 391 8269 E-mail: mlackner@reedsmith.com - and - Mark D. Etchart BROWNING KALECZYC BERRY & HOVEN PO Box 1697 Helena, MT 59624-1697 Telephone: (406) 443 6820 Facsimile: (406) 443 6883 E-mail: mark@bkbh.com WEST COVINA CORPORATE: Faces "San Nicholas" Suit in Calif. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles San Nicolas, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. West Covina Corporate Fitness, Inc., a California Corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC616304 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover all overtimes pay, wages and compensation pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendant owns and operates co-ed fitness centers in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Kyle R Nordrehaug, Esq. Norman B Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551 1223 Facsimile: (858) 551 1232 E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com Kyle@bamlawlj.com norm@bamlawlj.com - and - Mauro Fiore, Jr., Esq. Sergio J. Puche, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MAUROC FIORE, JR., APC 136 E. Lemon Ave. Monrovia, CA 91016 Telephone: (626) 856 5856 Facsimile: (626) 386 5520 WORLD WRESTLING: Court Narrows Claims in Former Wrestlers' Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.'s motion to dismiss in the case captioned, RUSS McCULLOUGH, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough", RYAN SAKODA, and MATTHEW R. WEISE, a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. EVAN SINGLETON and VITO LOGRASSO Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. WILLIAM ALBERT HAYNES III, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. Civil Action No. 3:15-cv- 001074 (VLB), Lead Case, No. 3:15-cv-00425 (VLB) Consolidated Case, 3:15-cv-01156 (VLB) Consolidated Case (D. Conn.). Plaintiffs in the consolidated action are former wrestlers for World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE), a Connecticut entertainment company which produces televised wrestling programming. Plaintiffs allege that they are either suffering from symptoms of permanent degenerative neurological conditions resulting from traumatic brain injuries sustained during their employment as wrestlers for WWE or are at increased risk of developing such conditions. Plaintiffs claim that they were injured as a result of WWE's negligence in scripting violent conduct and failing to properly educate, prevent, diagnose and treat them for concussions. Plaintiffs claim that WWE had knowledge of evidence suggesting a link between repeated head trauma that could be sustained during WWE events and permanent degenerative neurological conditions such as CTE and either concealed such evidence, fraudulent or negligently denied that it existed, or failed to disclose it in the face of a duty to disclose. Plaintiffs allege that they relied on such fraudulent statements or omissions to their detriment in making decisions regarding their health. In total, plaintiffs have asserted six claims against WWE in their Complaints, including "Fraudulent Concealment"; (Count II) "Fraud by Omission"; (Count III) Negligent Misrepresentation; (Count IV) Fraudulent Deceit; (Count V) Negligence; and (Count VI) Medical Monitoring. Currently before the Court are WWE's Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint brought by plaintiffs Singleton and LoGrasso, in its entirety, for failure to state a claim, as well as WWE's similar Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints brought by Plaintiff William Albert Haynes III and Plaintiffs Russ McCullough, Ryan Sakoda and Matthew Wiese, both of which are purported class actions. In her Memorandum dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/8jpwK8from Leagle.com, Judge Bryant found that, to the extent that the harm alleged is an increased risk for permanent degenerative neurological conditions, it is not evident from the face of the Complaints that any plaintiff discovered the actionable harm more than two years prior to the filing of the instant suits. The Court also finds the statute of limitations and repose may be tolled only as to the fraudulent omission claim and only to the extent that the Complaint raises questions of fact as to whether WWE owed a continuing duty to disclose, or fraudulently concealed, information pertaining to a link between WWE wrestling activity and permanent degenerative neurological conditions. Plaintiffs are represented by R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq. -- chrisgil@sidgilreath.com -- GILREATH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC They are also represented by: Jonas P. Mann, Esq. Michael A. McShane, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Ave #500, San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415)568-2555 - and - William M. Bloss, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203)583-8634 - and - Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW OFFICES 1100 6th Ave., South, Suite 229B Naples, FL 34102 Tel: (239)227-0804 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is represented by B. John Casey, Esq. -- john.casey@klgates.com -- Christopher M. Verdini, Esq. -- Christopher.verdini@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Esq. -- gpodesta@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOVITZ, PC, Jeffrey Mueller, Esq. -- jmueller@daypitney.com -- Jonathan B. Tropp, Esq. -- jtropp@daypitney.com -- and Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. -- tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP ZYNGA INC: Court Enters Order of Dismissal in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has entered a final judgment and order of dismissal, with prejudice, in the case captioned, IN RE ZYNGA INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: All Actions, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSC, Consolidated with Case No. 12-CV-4048-JSC, No. 12-CV-4059-JSC., 12-CV-4064-JSC, 12-CV-4066-JSC, 12-CV-4133-JSC, 12-CV-4250-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Information about the settlement is available at: https://www.zyngasecuritieslitigation.com/ On February 11, 2016, the Court filed an Order granting final approval to the Settlement at the Final Approval Hearing. The Settlement will provide $23,000,000, less fees and expenses, to pay claims. The Settlement Class shall mean all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Zynga common stock December 15, 2011 to July 25, 2012, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, the Officer Defendants, the Director Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants, the officers and directors of Zynga during the Settlement Class Period, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. In her Final Judgment and Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/KMYaOEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley found that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class. Certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only is appropriate because it satisfies the requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Plaintiffs are represented by Nicole Catherine Lavallee, Esq. -- nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- BERMAN DEVALERIO, Roy Shimon, Esq. -- Rshimon@bermandevalerio.com -- and Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. -- JNorton@nfllp.com -- NEWMAN FERRARA LLP Zynga, Inc. is represented by Anna Erickson White, Esq. - awhite@mofo.com -- Jordan Eth, Esq. - jeth@mofo.com -- Mark R.S. Foster, Esq. -- mfoster@mofo.com -- Samuel S. Song, Esq. -- ssong@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP * Fate of Class Actions Hang in Balance Post-Scalia --------------------------------------------------- Arthur H. Bryant, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the single biggest development affecting class actions -- and many other areas of the law -- in the past three months was the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Rarely has the ability of so many people to obtain justice been affected so greatly by the passing of one person. Justice Scalia stated his views so starkly that it may be difficult, at least in the short run, to separate the impact of his jurisprudence from the impact of his performance. He did not do meek. He powerfully advocated some substantive rights, like the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. He vehemently opposed other substantive rights, like the rights protected by the Voting Rights Act, which he called a "perpetuation of racial entitlement." He took strong positions on procedural issues, too - - especially class actions. From 2011 to 2015, Justice Scalia authored decisions in four cases: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, Comcast v. Behrend and American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, which dramatically limited and, in many circumstances, wholly eliminated the ability of injured consumers, workers and small businesses to use class actions to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. The fact that these companies could break the law and walk away with the money -- or, as Scalia put it, the victims' claims could "slip through the legal system" -- did not matter. Class actions could not be used. When this year started, three more cases seeking to limit class actions were pending before the court. The oral arguments in those cases made clear, however, that because the defendants' arguments sought to block class actions by rewriting wide swaths of law, the court might not be willing to rule in the defendants' favor. In the first, Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, decided shortly before Scalia died, the court held, 6-3, that an unaccepted settlement offer does not make a case moot and prevent the plaintiff from pursuing it, individually or as a class action. The court did not decide "whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff." But it said "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." Scalia dissented. EVIDENTIARY RULES The second, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, was decided after Justice Scalia passed and his vote would not have made a difference. The court, 6-2, said the defendant's argument for "a broad rule" prohibiting the use of "statistical . . . or representative evidence" in class actions made "little sense." It refused to create different evidentiary rules for class actions, stating, "In a case where . . . evidence is relevant in proving a plaintiff's individual claim, that evidence cannot be deemed improper merely because the claim is brought on behalf of a class." It held the class was properly certified, rejecting Justice Clarence Thomas's position, in dissent, that Justice Scalia's Comcast and Wal-Mart opinions precluded certification. The third, Spokeo v. Robins, has yet to be decided and may be a case in which Scalia was writing. He was particularly interested in standing issues and strongly supported the defendants' position at oral argument. But his vote might not have mattered here, either. Spokeo is trying to bar class (and individual) actions for statutory damages on the ground that Congress cannot "confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm." But, as several justices emphasized at oral argument, Spokeo Inc. did harm Thomas Robins by publishing all sorts of false information about him. Moreover, Spokeo framed its argument to challenge not just the class in this case, but the constitutionality of provisions in 18 different federal laws. Whether or not Justice Scalia's death changes the result in Spokeo, it will undoubtedly affect the actions of litigants and the court going forward. For the moment, defendants will stop pushing so hard to have the court hear and further limit class actions, and especially stop overreaching. Campbell-Ewald and Tyson Foods show that was a mistake, regardless of Justice Scalia. Class action plaintiffs will be less wary of the court -- and far less worried that the court aims to eliminate their rights and class actions entirely. Meanwhile, the remaining justices will likely postpone consideration of or decline to hear hotly disputed class action issues, seeking to avoid equally split decisions on key issues. Oral argument in Microsoft v. Baker, on whether plaintiffs can appeal orders denying class certification after they voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice, was just postponed until next term. And the court declined to hear Direct Digital v. Mullins, addressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's new "heightened" ascertainability requirement for class actions. Because a 4-4 decision affirms the result below but makes no nationally binding law, both plaintiffs and defendants will probably focus their activities in the jurisdictions where they view the state high courts or federal appeals courts as favorable. They'll figure that, absent extraordinary circumstances, those courts' decisions won't be reviewed until Justice Scalia's position is filled. When it is, the future of class actions should be much clearer. More on that later. * Canada's SC Tackles Class Action Multi-Jurisdictional Issues -------------------------------------------------------------- Cristin Schmitz, writing for The Lawyers Weekly, reports that class action and military justice appeals raise issues of particular note to lawyers on the Supreme Court of Canada's spring docket. At press time, the top court's spring session was not fully booked, with just 14 cases slated for argument beginning April 21 and none scheduled for June. Questions on the court's menu include whether a three-year wait for trial violates the Charter's s. 11(b) prohibition against unreasonable trial delay, and whether judges can rectify corporate records to reflect that a commercial transaction was intended to occur on a tax-free basis. Among the scheduled appeals that break new ground are twin hepatitis C class action settlement cases out of British Columbia and Ontario, to be heard together May 19: Endean et al. v. British Columbia and Parsons et al. v. Ontario. The novel issue: In order to enhance fairness, efficiency and consistency, can superior court judges from different jurisdictions sit together outside their provinces in order to jointly administer multi-jurisdictional or national class action settlements? The judges supervising the national hepatitis C settlement in Ontario, Quebec and B.C. agreed they had inherent jurisdiction to do so, but those provinces' attorneys general disagreed, with Ontario threatening to go to court to block the supervising Ontario judge from sitting outside the province, if need be. The Supreme Court's pronouncement on the legality of extraprovincial hearings is expected to affect a number of class actions. "Class actions have introduced multi-jurisdictional issues in a different way in Canada than we have seen before, and they call for new solutions," explained Endean class counsel Sharon Matthews -- smatthews@cfmlawyers.ca -- of Vancouver's Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman. "There are many cases in class actions. . . where more than one court is involved in making important rulings, and a high-level of co-operation -- both a spirit of co-operation and a practical co-operation -- among the courts is necessary for the effective and efficient adjudication of multi-jurisdictional class actions." The dispute arose because the provinces have failed for nearly two decades to enact laws governing how to iron out the procedural wrinkles of the growing number of pan-Canadian settlements. "Although the courts have invited legislation to deal with appropriate processes to facilitate multi-jurisdictional and national class actions, this has not happened and it is therefore left to the courts to fashion these processes," said Matthews' co- counsel J.J. Camp. "We contend that the three chief justices who were case-managing this multi-jurisdictional class action got it right, and that the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and the Ontario Court of Appeal got it wrong," he said by e-mail. In 2012, the three then-chief justices of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, who were jointly supervising the administration of the $1.1 billion national hepatitis C settlement, were scheduled to meet in Edmonton to attend a Canadian Judicial Council meeting. They decided to take advantage of that occasion by sitting together to hear concurrent motions from class counsel from Quebec, Ontario and B.C. Class counsel were seeking to extend the deadline to file claims under the 1999 agreement which compensated thousands of people infected, via the Canadian blood supply, with hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990. (The judges were to hear arguments together, but each was to decide separately the motion over which he had jurisdiction). However, Ontario Attorney General John Gerretsen balked at the joint hearing, objecting that superior court judges are barred from sitting outside their provinces by statute, the common law, the Constitution and the open court principle. The late-claims motions were therefore adjourned and argued later at separate court hearings that culminated in conflicting decisions and the suspension of the late-claims process. In deciding class counsel's motions for directions from each supervisory judge, in 2013 Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Bauman and Quebec Superior Court Chief Justice Fran‡ois Rolland ruled that their inherent jurisdiction to control the court processes for hearing matters over which their courts had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction entitled them to sit together, outside their home provinces, when the interests of justice required it. The three supervising judges rejected the assorted opposing submissions of the attorneys general of Ontario, Quebec and B.C. -- which included an argument that because the English common law dating back hundreds of years prohibited judges in England from sitting outside English borders, that law, as received in B.C. in 1858, prohibits Canadian provincial superior court judges from sitting outside their provinces. Justice Matthews said "we take issue with the . . . point that there is a common law prohibition. But if there is one, it's from very ancient practices in the United Kingdom which are not suitable to modern-day Canada, and . . . the Supreme Court of Canada has said that when old rules?-- particularly old jurisdictional rules?-- are not suitable to modern-day Canada the courts can, and should, change them." The attorneys general of Ontario and B.C. appealed their first- level defeat, while Quebec did not. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction does allow a judge to sit outside the province, but that that hearing must be video-linked to an Ontario courtroom (which can be devoid of counsel or the judge) to satisfy the open court principle. For its part, the B.C. Court of Appeal held that the common law bars a judge from sitting extra-provincially. However the appeal court went on to create a legal fiction to facilitate joint extra- provincial hearings. Thus a hearing would be deemed to "take place" in B.C.?-- even when the judge, the lawyers, and witnesses, are physically located outside B.C. -- so long as the extra- provincial elements of the hearing are electronically linked to an open and staffed (but otherwise empty) courtroom in B.C. Justice Matthews argues a video link "can be a means to have greater participation across the country" but "it's not a lawful jurisdictional foundation. It's an artifice. And artifices shouldn't be the basis on which you are doing it, because they are very vulnerable. And then if someone calls you on it, you have had hearings that were jurisdictionally unsound. So we want a correct ruling . . . [that] this can be done and, if so, it should be done, we say, in very rare circumstances, and we set out . . . a threshold test, and then if that threshold is passed, a series of balancing considerations as to whether it should be done." Another pair of appeals of first impression, to be heard by the top court April 25, has the potential to shake up the military justice system, by striking down, as contrary to the s. 7 Charter principles of fundamental justice, separate provisions in the National Defence Act which empower the minister of National Defence to appeal acquittals, stays and sentences to the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC) and to appeal CMAC decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Cawthorne and R. v. Gagnon. The cases are about "the recognition of prosecutorial independence as a principle of fundamental justice," said Lt.-Col. Jean-Bruno Cloutier, deputy director of Defence Counsel Services. "Is a minister of the Crown, who is not the attorney general . . . sufficiently independent to prosecute a crime in Canada?" explained Lt.-Cmdr. Mark Letourneau, co-counsel with Lt.-Col. Cloutier for the three respondent military members prosecuted for sexual offences under the Code of Service Discipline. If the top court agrees with the defense and the CMAC that the minister of Defence is not independent, it "will remove the last quasi-judicial power of the minister,. . . and that's consistent I think, to my knowledge, with the role of all ministers of the Crown who have an executive role, not a quasi-judicial role," said Letourneau. Last December in Gagnon, [2015] CMAC 2, the CMAC struck down the Defence minister's power to launch criminal appeals to the CMAC on the basis that reposing that quasi-judicial power in a politician, and a member of the executive bound by Cabinet solidarity, violates the Charter's s. 7 prohibition against depriving people of their liberty, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice -- which include prosecutorial independence. "The minister has simply no objective institutional independence required for the independent exercise of a function that can lead to imprisonment of one of his employees or [the employee's] dismissal," the CMAC reasoned, although it suspended its declaration of invalidity for six months. The court recognized that it is crucial "to make sure that the discretion of the prosecution is protected from political interference and judicial supervision," Lt.-Col. Cloutier said. However, the prosecution contends that the court struck down the minister's right of appeal by extending the principle of prosecutorial independence beyond anything previously recognized in case law, academic writing or international norms. "Properly understood, the principle of prosecutorial independence requires that prosecutorial decisions be made free from partisan political considerations, as well as any other improper motives," Col. Bruce MacGregor, the Canadian Armed Forces' director of military prosecutions, acknowledges in the appellant's factum. But that principle is protected "by a number of regimes, including applications for abuse of process and the tort of malicious prosecution. Both the principle, and the regimes which guard the principle, apply equally to the minister of National Defence in the exercise of his powers under ss. 230. 1 and 245(2) of the NDA, as they do to all public officials who exercise a prosecutorial function." ********* 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 * * *