/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160427.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 84 Headlines ACADEMY LTD: Recalls Outdoor Gourmet(R) Marinade Injectors ALERE INC: Faces "Godinez" Securities Class Action in Mass. AMERICAN FAMILY: "Krug" Suit Moved from S.D. to N.D. Illinois AMERICAN PROTECTION: "Lapit" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks BANKRATE INC: BanxCorp Litigation Remains Pending BANKRATE INC: "Johnson" TCPA Class Suit Dismissed BANKRATE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit BARNES & NOBLE: "Jones" Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends "Carag" Suit BLUE CROSS: Sued in Washington Over ABA Therapy Coverage Denial BRONCO'S SALOON: Court Vacates Denial of Class Certification BROOKLYN ACADEMY: Faces "Riley" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York BRUNTON OUTDOOR: Recalls Rechargeable Battery Packs BURKE ENGINEERING: "General Casualty" Suit to Hold Coverage BURLINGTON COAT: $1.8MM Deal in "Rodriguez" Has Final Court OK BUYCHEAPSOFTWARE: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facilities CADETE ENTERPRISES: Court Won't Consolidate "Marzuq" & "Pike" CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces "Barkau" Suit in S.D.N.Y. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Must Provide Additional Testimony CIENA CORPORATION: Defending Class Suit Over Cyan Merger COATING PLACE: Faces "Hoffmaster" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT COCHRAN WHOLESALE: Faces "ARcare" Suit in Middle Dist. of Georgia COLE HAAN: "Chin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls Lithium-Ion Flashlights Due to Fire Risk CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Chein" Suit in Eastern District New York CRF FROZEN: Recalls Frozen Vegetable Products Due to Listeria CVS PHARMACY: Settlement Deal in "Sharobiem" Has Final Okay DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Case in Mediation EUROPA ELECTRIC: Faces BDM Suit in New York Supreme Court FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Cradle 'n Swings Due to Injury Risk FIRST NIAGARA: MOU Reached in KeyCorp Merger Suit FLOOD BROTHERS: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FLYING J: Court Terminates "Duke" Suits FLYING TIGER: Recalls Wooden Toy Blocks and Giraffes FREIGHTQUOTE.COM: Collective Action Deal in "Koehler" Denied FRESH MARKET: "Sherman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Delaney" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FU JIN: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Chein" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York GRAND TAVERN: "Francois" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HEALTHWAYS INC: "Simon" Suit Proceeds in California HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Rudel Suit in District of New Jersey HILTON GRAND: Faces "Glasser" Suit in Middle District Florida HOME DEPOT: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Automatic Telephone Dialing I.C. SYSTEMS: Faces "Zeccardi" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey INNER CITY: "Schneider" Suit Seeks Reimbursement Under Labor Code INTERNATIONAL METALS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Carmona" Suit in District of New Jersey KEY ENERGY: Defending Wage and Hour Suit Class Suits in Calif. KEY ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Houston, Texas Class Action Pending KEY ENERGY: Merit-Based Discovery to Begin in Corpus Christi Suit KEY ENERGY: 15% of Eligible Members Join Houston Class Suit MAALT SPECIALIZED: Violated FLSA, "Tenboer" Suit Claims MARRIOTT HOTEL: "McCray" Suit Moved from Super. Ct to N.D. Cal. MAZDA MOTOR: Sued in Cal. Over Defective 2010-15 Mazda 3 Vehicles MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Suits by Fresno Bee Carriers Ongoing MDL 1840: Costco Wholesale's Appeal Pending MDL 2179: BP Plc Provides Updates of Macondo Oil Spill Cases MDL 2185: July 5 Trial on Securities Fraud Claims MDL 2280: Cert. Bids in Morgan Stanley Wage & Hour Suit Denied METROPOLITAN OPERA: Faces "Riley" Suit in Southern Dist. New York MICHAEL'S PLACE: "Ibarra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MONRO MUFFLER: "Jarmon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Breached Repair Warranty, "Lynch" Suit Claims MRS BPO: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in Eastern District New York MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defends "Vo" Class Suit NAC MARKETING: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Certain Claims NATURAL HEALTH: Says Securities Class Suits in Early Stage NEW YORK: Democrats Sue State Board of Elections NEW YORK CITY CENTER: Faces "Riley" Suit in S.D.N.Y. NORMANDIN CHRYSLER: OneCommand Must Produce Documents OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: To Defend EveryWare Global Investors' Suit PACIFIC CAPITAL: MRI's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims Denied PANERA LLC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida PAPA MURPHY'S: Still Defending "Lennartson" Class Suit in Wash. PATRIARCH PARTNERS: "Eisenstadt" Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y. PINGTAN MARINE: Still Defends Against "Fila" Class Suit PIZZA THE PIE: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA PLANT ENGINEERING: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls RZR 900 & 1000Off-Highway Vehicles ROKA BIOSCIENCE: In Talks to Settle Securities Suit ROLLERBLADE USA: Recalls Rollerblade Inline Skating Helmets ROSICKI ROSICKI: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y. S CARTER ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Suit Over "Life of Pablo" SANTA FE NATURAL: "Cuebas" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695 SANTA FE NATURAL: "Waldo" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695 SANTA FE NATURAL: "Okstad" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Dattoma" Suit in N.D. Cal. SEPHORA USA: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Provencio" Suit Says SIENTRA INC: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Shareholder Suit SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Want Suit Remanded to Superior Court SOUVNEAR INC: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Hazard SPARK ENERGY: Dismissal, Arbitration Bids in "Amaya" Case Denied SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach STAPLES THE OFFICE: Recalls Office Chairs Due to Fall Hazard SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Jewett" Suit Says TACO BELL: Court Awards $291,987 as Prejudgment Interest TUFCO INC: Faces "Romano" Suit Over Home Improvement Deal Breach TULANE UNIVERSITY: "England" Suit Seeks Benefits UNITED GUARANTY: Faces "Rodan" Suit in Western Dist. Kentucky VAM USA: "Guidry" Suit Seeks Compensation & OT Pay Under FLSA VECO AUTO: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages VECTOR GROUP: $26.9MM Product Liability Legal Expenses in 2015 VECTOR GROUP: 171 Engle Progeny Cases Settled for $3.6-Mil. VECTOR GROUP: 260 Claims Outstanding Amid Engle Progeny Deal VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Faces Class Suit in E.D. Louisiana VECTOR GROUP: Trial in W.Va. Tobacco Case Set for Jan. 2017 VITA-MIX CORPORATION: Faces "Candelario" Suit in D.N.J. VIVUS INC: Bid to Dismiss "Jasin" Securities Suit Pending VIZIO INC: "Tongarm" Suit Transferred from N.D. to C.D. Cal. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Napleton Suit Consolidated With MDL 2672 VS PHARMACY: Recalls Organic Spiced Herbal Tea Due to Salmonella WEST MARINE: Calif. Court Approves Class Suit Settlement WESTLEX CORP: 5th Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Remand WILBUR PRODUCTS: "Tatum" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ala. WINDSOR WINDOW: "Clark" Suit Consolidated With MDL 2688 WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: "Forster" Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles ********* ACADEMY LTD: Recalls Outdoor Gourmet(R) Marinade Injectors ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Academy, Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors, of Katy, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 3,500 Outdoor Gourmet(R) marinade injectors. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The injectors can have small metal shavings left inside during the manufacturing process. The metal shavings can be deposited into the marinade during use and ingested by consumers. This recall involves Outdoor Gourmet(R) marinade injectors. They are stainless steel, measure about six inches in length and have three metal rings at the top. "Outdoor Gourmet," "6 inch stainless steel injector," style number BGOG0047, UPC 400216227091 and the following date codes are printed on the product packaging. Date Codes for Marinade Injectors 06/15-2549000 06/15-2549319 06/15-2549203 Academy Sports + Outdoors has received one report of small metal shavings coming out of the product on first use. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/8dX3uN The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Academy Sports + Outdoors stores nationwide and online at www.academy.com from September 2015 through December 2015 for about $20. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled marinade injectors and return them to any Academy Sports + Outdoors store for a full refund or a free replacement marinade injector. ALERE INC: Faces "Godinez" Securities Class Action in Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------- Judith Godinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Alere Inc., Ron Zwanziger, Namal Nawana, David Teitel, James F. Hinrichs, And Carla R. Flakne, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10766 (D. Mass., April 21, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). On February 1, 2016, Alere disclosed that it had entered into a merger agreement with Abbot Laboratories. On this news, Alere's stock price shot up $16.91, or more than 45%, to close at $54.11 per share on February 1, 2016. On March 15, 2015, the company filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. Therein, the Company disclosed that the Company would be unable to file its 2015 Form 10-K within the extension period because it was continuing to conduct an analysis of certain aspects of the timing of revenue recognition, more specifically, revenue cutoff, in Africa and China for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015. On this news, Alere's stock price fell $4.14 per share, or 9.2%, to close on March 15, 2016, at $49.32 per share, on unusually heavy volume. On April 20, 2016, the CEO of Abbott Laboratories did not affirm Abbott Laboratories' commitment to merge with Alere. The Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions resulted to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, says the complaint. Alere is a global diagnostic device and service provider. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682 5340 Facsimile: (212) 884 0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. Steven P. Harte, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398 5600 Facsimile: (617) 507 6020 E-mail: jason@blockesq.com steven@blockesq.com AMERICAN FAMILY: "Krug" Suit Moved from S.D. to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Krug, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01354, was transferred the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the US District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-04532 to the proceeding. American Family, together with its subsidiaries, provides various insurance products and services in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: James J Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS AND LOWE 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725 7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com The Defendant is represented by: Heather Hyun Harrison, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS - CHICAGO 311 South Wacker Dr., Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606-6622 Telephone: (312) 212 6512 Facsimile: (312) 212 6501 E-mail: heather.harrison@faegrebd.com - and - John A. Roberts, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606-1229 Telephone: (312) 356 5114 E-mail: john.roberts@faegrebd.com AMERICAN PROTECTION: "Lapit" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks --------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Lapit, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. American Protection Security Services, American Protection Security, Alpha Management & Maintenance, Inc., Syrus Alemozaffar and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC617067 (Cal. Super, April 14, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods, reimbursement for required business expenses, statutory penalties, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other relief under California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5-2001, California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. Henry Lapit was hired and employed by Defendants as a security guard. Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor thus denied overtime pay, meal/rest breaks, reimbursement of reasonable and necessary business expenses and itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian J. Petronelli, Esq. Dean S. Ho, Esq. PETRONELLI & HO LLP 295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201 Long Beach, CA 90803 Telephone: (888) 855-3670 Facsimile: (888) 449-9675 Email: dean@employees-lawyer.com christian@employees-lawyer.com BANKRATE INC: BanxCorp Litigation Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- BanxCorp litigation remains pending, Bankrate, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. In July 2007, BanxCorp, an online publisher of rate information provided by financial institutions with respect to various financial products, filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of Federal and New Jersey State antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. BanxCorp has alleged that it has been injured as a result of monopolistic and otherwise anticompetitive conduct on the part of the Company and is seeking approximately $180 million in compensatory damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2012, BanxCorp filed a Seventh Amended Complaint, alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 7 of the Clayton Act and parallel provisions of New Jersey antitrust laws, and dropping its claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Discovery closed on December 21, 2012 and both parties filed motions in the first quarter of 2013 seeking summary judgment that are pending before the court. The Company will continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company cannot presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would result from an adverse resolution of this matter. BANKRATE INC: "Johnson" TCPA Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- The "Johnson" class action lawsuit against Bankrate, Inc., has been dismissed, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. In June 2015, a putative class action lawsuit styled Johnson v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs alleged that the Company contacted her and members of the class she seeks to represent on their cellular telephones without their prior express written consent and seeks to certify a nationwide class of individuals on that basis. In October 2015, an amended complaint was filed adding a second named plaintiff, making the same allegations as the original complaint, and seeking certification of the same proposed class and the same relief as the original complaint. On January 26, 2016, the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with the Company on an individual basis for an immaterial amount. On February 3, 2016, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. BANKRATE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Bankrate, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion to dismiss filed by the Company and the remaining defendants in a securities class action lawsuit is pending. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-81323-DMM. On November 23, 2015, the District Court dismissed an amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice for failing to adequately plead material misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, or loss causation and damages. On December 8, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half of 2014 financial statements improperly recognized revenues and expenses and therefore were materially false and misleading and caused damages. Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive. On January 8, 2016, the Company and the remaining defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That motion is pending. "The action is in its preliminary stages and we are not able to predict its outcome," the Company said. "The Company cannot presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would result from an adverse resolution of this matter." Two earlier lawsuits making similar allegations, captioned Tong v. Evans, et al., No. 14-cv-81183-KLR (S.D. Fla), and Atiyeh v. Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y), were voluntarily dismissed by their respective plaintiffs. BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the Company's second motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the PIN Pad Litigation is pending. As previously disclosed, the Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the parties in the case, Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., have executed a settlement agreement memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be filing a dismissal of the matter with the court. On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class representative, or that a class action was a superior method to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending appeal. The parties have subsequently executed a settlement agreement memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be filing a dismissal of the matter with the court. BARNES & NOBLE: "Jones" Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the parties in the case, Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., have executed a settlement agreement memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be filing a dismissal of the matter with the court. On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees. On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013. On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending appeal in the related Lina action. The parties have subsequently executed a settlement agreement memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be filing a dismissal of the matter with the court. BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends "Carag" Suit ------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the case, Cassandra Carag, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, remains pending. On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non- exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records, and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to present. On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint (referring the latter motion to the lower court for future consideration). No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BLUE CROSS: Sued in Washington Over ABA Therapy Coverage Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- J.T.L., by and through his parents and guardians J.L. and J.L., individually and on behalf of the Eaton Vance Management Health Benefit Plan, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., Case No. 2:16- cv-00573 (W.D. Wa., April 20, 2016), alleges that the Defendants denied coverage to J.T.L. for Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy provided in school, based on an exclusion in the terms of its plans. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. operates an insurance corporation engaged in the business of insurance in Massachusetts and throughout the United States, including in Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com BRONCO'S SALOON: Court Vacates Denial of Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Sean F. Cox of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan vacated judgment and granted certification of class action in the case captioned, APB Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Bronco's Saloon, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-14959 (E.D. Mich.). Three separate, but very similar, putative class actions were assigned to the Court at or around the same date. These cases are (1) Machesney v. Lar-Bev of Howell, Inc., et al. (Case No. 10- 10085) (Machesney); (2) APB Associates, Inc. v. Bronco's Saloon, Inc., et al. (Case No. 09-14959) (APB Associates); and (3)Compressors Engineering Corp. v. Manufacturers Financial Corp. et al. (Case No. 09-14444) (Compressors Engineering). All three cases were filed by the same plaintiff's counsel and assert claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the TCPA). Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification states that Defendants either owned or oversaw Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchises. Plaintiff claims that Defendants hired Caroline Abraham (aka Business to Business Solutions) to send faxes out on their behalf. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification states that Defendants' advertisements are form documents that were sent to 9,497 unique fax numbers. Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of "All persons who were sent one or more faxes on November 28, 2005, November 30, 2005, February 14, 2006, or February 15, 2006, offering KFC Catering Prices, including 200 HOT WINGS for $79.99 and a variety of KFC's FAMOUS SIDE DISHES, and identifying and [sic] a Complaint Hotline number of (718) 645-2021 Ext. 232 or (718) 360-1330 ext. 232." In April of 2013, the Court denied Motions for Class Certifications in all three cases and issued essentially the same opinion in each case. The main reason for the denial of class certification was the Court's conclusion that there was not an ascertainable class because only persons or entities who owned the fax machine had statutory standing to bring a claim. The Court concluded that the claims are inherently individualized because of the statutory defense that only "unsolicited" faxes give rise to a claim. The Supreme Court, however, issued a decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez on January 20, 2016, ruling that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case. In the motion, Plaintiff asks Court to vacate the judgment issued in the case and then reconsider class certification, based upon Sixth Circuit TCPA cases that were issued after this Court had denied class certification. In his Opinion and Order dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/jqZpgwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cox found that that the Gomez ruling provides a compelling basis for the Court to reverse the judgments that it issued in these three cases and for the purpose of Rule 59(e) is to allow the district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings. The Court certified a class of "All persons or entities who were sent faxes on February 27, 2006, that listed Bronco Saloon, Pony Express Saloon, Mustang Inn, Chix on Dix, and a Complaint Hotline number of (718) 360-1330, ext 232." Jason J. Thompson of Sommers Schwartz, P.C. and Phillip Bock of Bock & Hatch, LLC are appointed as class counsel. APB Associates, Inc. is represented by Brian J. Wanca, Esq. -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- and Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA, Jason J. Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Phillip A. Bock, Esq. -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- and Tod A. Lewis, Esq. -- tod@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK & HATCH LLC Bronco's Saloon, Inc. is represented by Jason R. Mathers, Esq. -- bpeplinski@kallashenk.com -- and John R. Prew, Esq. -- HARVEY KRUSE T & R Enterprises, Inc, is represented by Bobby R. Peplinski, Esq. -- bpeplinski@kallashenk.com -- and Wayne A. Geik, Esq. -- jprew@harveykruse.com -- wgeik@kallashenk.com -- KALLAS & HENK BROOKLYN ACADEMY: Faces "Riley" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against The Brooklyn Academy of Music, Inc. The case is captioned Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Brooklyn Academy of Music, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01942 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016). The Brooklyn Academy is a multi-arts center located in Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Xee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: info@leelitigation.com BRUNTON OUTDOOR: Recalls Rechargeable Battery Packs --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Brunton Outdoor Inc., of Louisville, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,050 Rechargeable battery packs in the U.S. (in addition, about 40 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The power packs' lithium ion polymer batteries can overheat and catch on fire during charging, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves Brunton's Impel and Impel 2 rechargeable, portable battery packs that are used to charge cell phones, tablets, laptops and other devices. The Impel battery came in a rubberized shell in dark gray with orange or blue and the Impel 2 in light gray with black trim. The battery packs can be plugged into an A/C wall outlet, a 12 volt car charger or an attachable solar panel for recharging. They measure about 7.5 inches long by 7 inches wide by 1 inch thick. The lithium ion polymer battery packs have 16, and 19 volt outputs and a USB port. The Impel model also has a 12 volt output. Brunton is embossed on the top of the battery pack, along with the power button and five LED lights. The firm has received two reports of battery packs overheating and catching on fire; with one incident resulting in about $25,000 of property damage and another one in a garage burning down with property and smoke damage to the adjacent residence. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/fKqEKW The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Adorama, Austin Canoe & Kayak, Moontrail, REI, The Clymb and other outdoor equipment retailers nationwide and online at www.amazon.com, www.backcountry.com, www.bhphotovideo.com, www.forestry-suppliers.com, and www.opticsplanet.com from February 2011 through May 2015 for about $300. BURKE ENGINEERING: "General Casualty" Suit to Hold Coverage ----------------------------------------------------------- General Casualty Company of Wisconsin and General Casualty Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. Burke Engineering Corporation and Village of Crestwood Residents/Claimants, Case No. 2016CH05263 (Ill. Cir., April 14, 2016), seeks (i) a declaration that the General Casualty's policies do not provide coverage for a settlement with claimants and that the Plaintiffs have no duty to indemnify Burke or otherwise provide coverage or to pay any settlement entered under the said policies, (ii) attorney's fees and (iii) such other and further relief under the policies. Burke Engineering was an engineering firm hired by Crestwood on civil engineering and civic planning matters. Claimants sued Burke for supplying contaminated tap water and claims insurance coverage from the Plaintiff. General Casualty alleged that Burke entered into a settlement with certain claimants to resolve its liability with respect to certain lawsuits and, as part of that settlement, purported to assign the right to pursue insurance coverage to certain claimants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eileen King Bower, Esq. William P. Pipal TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Tel: (312) 759-1920 Fax: (312) 759-1939 BURLINGTON COAT: $1.8MM Deal in "Rodriguez" Has Final Court OK -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval of the parties' settlement agreement in the case captioned, ARMIDA RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation; BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF CALIFORNIA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV 13-02426 DDP (RZx) (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff, Armida Rodriguez and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation and Burlington Coat Factory of California LLC filed a proposed Joint Stipulation for Class Action Settlement. The Court has previously granted preliminary approval of the class settlement that provided for conditional class certification; has been informed by declarations that notice of the settlement has been provided to the Class; has held a fairness hearing at which all parties appeared by their Counsel and at which the Class Members were afforded the opportunity to object to the proposed settlement; has received and reviewed briefing and evidence as to why the proposed settlement is fair, adequate and in the best interests of the represented class; and has considered all other arguments and submissions in connection with the proposed settlement. In his Judgment and Order dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/qZilvXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson found that the settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, and reasonable and meets the legal requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court approved of the settlement amount of $1,800,000, and said $77,000 is payable to ILYM Group, Inc. as class administrator. Plaintiffs are represented by Scott B. Cooper, Esq. -- scott@cooper-firm.com -- and Samantha A. Smith, Esq. -- smith@cooper-firm.com -- THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC They are also represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. Sharon W. Lin, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd #200, Torrance, CA 90275 Tel: (310)961-9600 - and - Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949)379-6250 - and - Roger Richard Carter, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 2561 Dauphin Street Mobile AL 36606 Tel: (251)433-6500 Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation is represented by Joshua Bram Wagner, Esq. -- jwagner@gordonrees.com -- Lisa K. Garner, Esq. -- lgarner@gordonrees.com -- and Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq. -- mlauinger@gordonrees.com -- GORDON AND REES LLP BUYCHEAPSOFTWARE: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------ Miguel Perez, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jonathan Dracup, Heather Dracup, BuyCheapSoftware, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC617660 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to make their facilities accessible to people who are disabled. The Defendants own and operate a commercial real property located at 13470 Washington Boulevard, Marina Del Ray, California 90292. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Katofsky, Esq. Michael Leff, Esq. JEFF KATOFSKY, APC 4558 Sherman Oaks Avenue Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 990-1475 Facsimile: (818) 990-1477 CADETE ENTERPRISES: Court Won't Consolidate "Marzuq" & "Pike" ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Notice to be Issued to Similarly Situated Employees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases in the case captioned, GASSAN MARZUQ and TANISHA RODRIGUEZ, as substituted party for LISA CHANTRE, Plaintiffs, v. CADETE ENTERPRISES, INC., T.J. DONUTS, INC., SAMOSET ST. DONUTS, INC. and JOHN CADETTE, Defendants, Case No. 11-10244-LTS (D. Mass.). Plaintiffs Gassan Marzuq (Marzuq) and Lisa Chantre (Chantre) (Plaintiffs) initiated this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action, on behalf of themselves and, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), all others similarly situated on February 14, 2011, when they filed a Complaint. The case was originally before Judge Wolf. He referred the case to Magistrate Judge Boal for all pre- trial proceedings, as well as necessary reports and recommendations, on January 13, 2012. On September 1, 2011, Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint, the First Amended Complaint, which still included claims on behalf of both the individual plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals who chose to opt in. On July 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint which raised only individual claims, and no longer included any reference to similarly situated individuals in the caption. The case proceeded through discovery, and on February 22, 2013, Defendants moved for summary judgment. While Judge Boal recommended that the motion be denied, Judge Saylor, to whom the case was reassigned, denied the motion solely for the retaliation claims, and granted summary judgment on the FLSA claims. Plaintiffs appealed Judge Saylor's decision granting summary judgment on the FLSA claim. The First Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment for defendants and remanded the case. Plaintiffs bring two motions, both of which Defendants oppose. One is a Motion for Notice to be Issued to Similarly Situated Employees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) (Motion for notice). The other is a Motion to Consolidate Cases, which would combine the case with another one before Judge Saylor, Pike v. New Generation Donut, 12-cv-12226-FDS, involving two different employees. In his Order dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/BCHkU8 from Leagle.com, Judge Sorokin found that Plaintiffs have waived any claims on behalf of similarly situated individuals and Defendants' counsel represented to the Court at a Status Conference that the parties engaged in settlement negotiations predicated on Plaintiffs' dismissal of these very claims. The Court invokes its discretion to decline consolidating the case with Pike. While the case has completed discovery and is essentially ready for trial, Pike has yet to begin discovery. And, unlike the case, Pike features Massachusetts law claims for unpaid hours and failure to pay minimum wage. Plaintiffs are represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. Defendants are represented by Maria T. Davis, Esq. -- mdavis@toddweld.com -- and Nicholas B. Carter, Esq. -- ncarter@toddweld.com -- TODD & WELD LLP CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces "Barkau" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against California Resources Corporation. The case is captioned Brad Barkau, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. California Resources Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02971 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2016). California Resources is an independent company and leading producer of oil and natural gas focused exclusively on California. The Plaintiff appears pro se. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Must Provide Additional Testimony --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BRUCE M. COOPER et al., Plaintiffs. v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-cv- 10530-MGM (D. Mass.), Judge Katherine A. Robertson granted in part and denied, in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel a continuation of their first Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Entertainment, LLC (collectively, "Charter"). The judge also denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees and costs. In this putative class action case, the plaintiffs contended that, from 2008 to the present, Charter failed to provide its customers with a credit, refund, or rebate for periods when services already paid for by Charter customers were unavailable because of wide spread power outages of which Charter was aware, failed to disclose its refund policy clearly and conspicuously to its customers in violation of Massachusetts law, and maintained a refund policy that was in violation of state law. The parties have agreed that, as a next step in discovery, the plaintiffs would take five depositions that they had previously noticed, including a second Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition of Charter. Thomas Cohan, Charter's Director of Government Affairs, was designated by Charter as its sole Rule 30(b)(6) deponent. After the deposition, however, the plaintiffs stated on the record their intention to "keep the deposition open" on the grounds that documents requested in discovery related to topics set out in Schedule A were produced late or had not been produced, that the witness was not adequately prepared, and that Charter's counsel had improperly instructed the witness not to answer questions about the interpretation of customer agreements that contained arbitration clauses and class action waivers. The plaintiffs moved to compel a continuation of their first Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, seeking an order from the court that compels Charter to answer additional questions on any and all of the topics listed in Schedule A, instructs Charter's counsel not to object or instruct the deponent not to answer except in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(2), and compels Charter to pay the plaintiffs' fees and costs incurred in connection with the taking of such further Rule 30(b)(6) testimony. Judge Robertson found that Charter produced a deponent who was adequately prepared to testify, and thus held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a second day of unlimited testimony on the topics listed in Schedule A. Further, because Charter did not frustrate the fair examination of the deponent or otherwise significantly impede the plaintiffs' examination, the judge held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of expenses and reasonable attorney's fees. Nonetheless, based on the plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their motion and the deposition transcript, Judge Robertson ordered that Charter should provide additional Rule 30(b)(6) testimony in certain areas or topics identified in Schedule A. A full-text copy of Judge Robertson's April 11, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/PtUPtCfrom Leagle.com. Bruce M. Cooper, Roy L. Baker, Whitney Taylor Thompson, Noreen Nardi, Mauramy Hernandez, Jennifer Colon, Plaintiff, represented by Francis D. Dibble, Jr. -- fdibble@bulkley.com -- Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, Jeffrey S. Morneau -- jmorneau@cmolawyers.com -- Connor Morneau & Olin, LLP, Nathan A. Olin -- nolin@cmolawyers.com -- Connor, Morneau & Olin, LLP, J. Lizette Richards, Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, Jodi Kim Miller -- jmiller@bulkley.com -- Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, John P. Pucci -- jpucci@bulkley.com -- Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas & Kevin C. Maynard -- kmaynard@bulkley.com -- Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas. Jacqueline Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Francis D. Dibble, Jr., Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, Jeffrey S. Morneau, Connor Morneau & Olin, LLP,Jodi Kim Miller, Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas & Nathan A. Olin, Connor, Morneau & Olin, LLP. Charter Communications Entertainments I, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc., Defendants, represented by Robert J. Wagner -- rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Brian P. Voke -- bvoke@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Jessica C. Jeffrey -- jjeffrey@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Kathleen M. Guilfoyle -- kguilfoyle@campbell-trial- lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC & Roman P Wuller -- rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice. National Grid USA, Interested Party, represented by Lynette Paczkowski -- lpaczkowski@bowditch.com -- Bowditch & Dewey LLP & Louis M. Ciavarra -- lciavarra@bowditch.com -- Bowditch & Dewey, LLP. CIENA CORPORATION: Defending Class Suit Over Cyan Merger -------------------------------------------------------- Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the Company intends to defend itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit related to a merger deal with Cyan, Inc. From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class action lawsuits in connection with Ciena's then-pending acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: -- Luvishis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11027-CB, filed May 15, 2015 -- Poll v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11028-CB, filed May 15, 2015 -- Canzano v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 11052-CB, filed May 20, 2015 -- Kassis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11069-CB, filed May 27, 2015 -- Fenske v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11090-CB, filed June 3, 2015 Each of the complaints named Cyan (except for the Canzano complaint), Ciena, Neptune Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Ciena subsidiary created solely for the purpose of effecting the acquisition ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of directors as defendants. On June 23, 2015, each of these lawsuits was consolidated into a single case captioned In Re Cyan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB. On July 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action complaint, which named as defendants Ciena, Merger Sub, and the members of Cyan's board of directors. On August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which named as defendants the members of Cyan's board of directors. Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not named as defendants. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the Cyan board members breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in a conflicted and unfair sales process, failing to maximize stockholder value in the acquisition, taking steps to preclude competitive bidding, and failing to disclose material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the acquisition. The second amended complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a quasi-appraisal remedy, (ii) rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an accounting of all damages caused as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, (iv) compensatory damages, and (v) costs including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. On October 15, 2015, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. A briefing schedule for these motions has been set, with briefing to be completed in March 2016. The Company said, "As a result of our acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, we became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. On April 1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors, Cyan's former Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of Cyan's initial public offering. On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated as Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-538355. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint, which the court overruled in October 2014 and allowed the case to proceed. On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified. On August 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case, which motion was denied on October 23, 2015. Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. COATING PLACE: Faces "Hoffmaster" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- David Hoffmaster, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Coating Place, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00258 (W.D. Wis., April 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Coating Place, Inc. operates a pharmaceutical company specializing in Wurster fluid bed microencapsulation technology focused on drug delivery system development and outsource manufacturing. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com cmadden@hq-law.com COCHRAN WHOLESALE: Faces "ARcare" Suit in Middle Dist. of Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Cochran Wholesale Pharmaceuticals Inc. The case is captioned ARcare doing business as: Parkin Drug Store and Bald Knob Medical Clinic, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cochran Wholesale Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00041-CDL (M.D. Ga., April 20, 2016). The assigned U.S. District Judge is Hon. Clay D. Land. Cochran Wholesale is a pharmaceutical products wholesale and manufacturer company located in Monroe, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230 0063 Facsimile: (619) 255 1856 E-mail: MichaelF@JohnsonandWeaver.com COLE HAAN: "Chin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Chin, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cole Haan, LLC, Cole Haan Company Store, LLC, and Calceus Acquisition, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. CGC16-550794, was removed from San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02154 to the proceeding. Cole Haan manufactures outerwear, shoes, bags, and accessories for men, women, and kids. The Plaintiff appears pro se. COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls Lithium-Ion Flashlights Due to Fire Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Coleman Company Inc., Wichita, Kan., announced a voluntary recall of about 8,500 Coleman(R) CTAC Lithium-Ion Flashlights in the United States (in addition, about 500 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The lithium-ion batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers. This recall involves three models of Coleman(R) CTAC Lithium-Ion Flashlights. Models include CTAC20 (model 2000013874), CTAC40 (model 2000013873) and CTAC60 (model 2000013872). The flashlights are black, with "Coleman" printed in white along the handle and have the model number in white print on the upper portion of the handle next to the light. The flashlights are 6.5 inches long. The lithium-ion batteries inside the flashlights are red with the Coleman logo printed in white on the battery. Coleman has received two reports of the flashlight batteries overheating, catching fire and causing minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/IybLZq The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Academy Sports + Outdoors, Green Supply, Sportsman's Supply Company and sporting goods stores nationwide and online at www.coleman.com and www.amazon.com from January 2014 through August 2015 for between $65 and $75. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled flashlights and contact Coleman for instructions on returning the flashlights for a full refund. CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Chein" Suit in Eastern District New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services. The case is captioned Sholom D.B. Chein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., doing business as: Credit Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01952 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016). Credit Control provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com CRF FROZEN: Recalls Frozen Vegetable Products Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------- CRF Frozen Foods of Pasco, Washington is voluntarily recalling fifteen frozen vegetable items that have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. No illnesses have been reported to date, but the company is recalling the products as a precaution. The Listeria was discovered through routine testing by state health officials in Ohio. Listeria monocytogenes was found to be present in one lot of Individually Quick Frozen (IQF) organic petite green peas and one lot of IQF organic white sweet cut corn. Recalled items were sold in plastic bags and are marked with Use By Dates located on the back of the package. Listed below are details regarding the recalled items: Label Size Item UPC Use By ----- ---- ---- --- Date ------ True Goodness 10 oz. Organic Petite 713733430999 11/26/2017 By Meijer Green Peas True Goodness 10 oz. Organic White 713733430982 11/21/2017 By Meijer Sweet Corn Wellsley Farms 4 lb. Organic Mixed 888670010136 10/25/2017 Organic Veg Wellsley Farms 4 lb. Organic Green 888670009970 2/10/2018 Organic Peas Wellsley Farms 4 lb. Organic Green 888670009970 2/15/2018 Organic Peas Wellsley Farms 4 lb. Organic Green 888670009970 3/17/2018 Organic Peas Organic By 2.5 kg. Organic Green 846358000619 10/22/2017 Nature - Peas Canada Organic By 2.5 kg. Organic Green 846358000619 12/3/2017 Nature - Peas Canada Organic By 2.5 kg. Organic Green 846358000619 3/16/2018 Nature - Peas Canada Organic By 4 lb. Organic Green 846358000695 10/25/2017 Nature Peas Organic By 5 lb. Organic Green 846358000633 2/15/2018 Nature Peas Organic By 5 lb. Organic Veg 846358000657 2/11/2018 Nature Medley w/ Shelled Edamame Organic By 4 lb. Organic White 846358000701 11/19/2017 Nature Supersweet Corn Organic By 5 lb. Organic White 846358000640 9/13/2017 Nature Supersweet Corn Schwan's 16 oz. Organic SS 007218060433 2B5320 Yellow & White Cut Corn We know the recalled frozen vegetables were distributed to retailers and distribution centers between September 13, 2015 and March 16 in the following states, and may be redistributed in other states nationwide: AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan of Canada. Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who purchased these products may take them back to the store where they purchased them for a refund or simply discard them. Consumers seeking information may call 844.551.5595 Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Pacific Standard Time. Members of the news media requiring more information should contact Anne Struthers at 218.616.0769. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/pJA6nn CVS PHARMACY: Settlement Deal in "Sharobiem" Has Final Okay ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge George H. King granted final approval of the class action settlement and awarded fees, costs, and a representative enhancement award in the case captioned ANGIL SHAROBIEM, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 13-9426-GHK (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.). Judge King found, for purposes of settlement only, that the proposed settlement class satisfies the applicable standards for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The judge found that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed negotiations; and treats all settlement class members fairly. Having received three requests for exclusion from the settlement, Judge King found that Yoonah Kim, Jiyoung Kim, and Anh Dao Nguyen are not bound by the terms of the settlement agreement. Judge King ordered as follows: -- Dispersing the gross settlement fund in accordance with the settlement agreement as detailed in the Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, granted on December 1, 2015; -- Awarding Class Representative Michael Yee an enhancement award of $5,000 as fair and reasonable compensation for his services; -- Directing payment of up to $14,613.05 to the Settlement Administrator, Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, or, in the event that there will be a second distribution to Settlement Class Members from unclaimed funds, if any, payment of an additional $8,072.93 to the Settlement Administrator; -- Approving payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in the amount of $6,900, paid from the Gross Settlement Fund, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; -- Granting an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $881,280, representing 30% of the Gross Settlement Fund, upon consideration of the relevant factors and granting $16,258.48 in litigation costs; -- Approving the cy pres beneficiary agreed to by the Parties, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles ("LAFLA"), provided that any funds be directed to LAFLA's "Employment & Employment Barriers" section. A full-text copy of Judge King's April 11, 2016 judgment and order is available at http://is.gd/LUwaerfrom Leagle.com. Michael Yee, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan C McGlaze, Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Alireza Alivandivafa, Law Offices of Alireza Alivandivafa, Azadeh C Dadgostar -- azadeh@dadgostarlaw.com -- Dadgostar Law LLP, Hirad D Dadgostar -- hirad@dadgostarlaw.com -- Dadgostar Law LLP, Michael Hagop Boyamian, Law Offices of Thomas W Falvey, Michael D Seplow, Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP,Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Office of Thomas Falvey, Vincent James DeSimone, V James DeSimone Law & Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law Offices of Thomas Falvey. CVS Pharmacy Inc, a Rhode Island corporation, CVS RX Services Inc, Garfield Beach CVS LLC, Defendants, represented by Michael D Weil -- mweil@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Timothy J Long -- tjlong@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Byron Robert Lau, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Case in Mediation -------------------------------------------------- Dynavax Technologies Corporation has participated in mediation with the lead plaintiff in a securities class action, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the "defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to the Company's product, HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On January 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleged that, between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with statements related to our product candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the ACC alleged that the Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions regarding the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully profited from such misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On June 6, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On August 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on December 1, 2014. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on February 20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on April 6, 2015. Dynavax and the lead plaintiff in the securities class action have participated in mediation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. EUROPA ELECTRIC: Faces BDM Suit in New York Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Europa Electric of NY. The case is captioned BDM Solutions LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Europa Electric of NY, Ano Corp., Aprilakis Evangelina, and John and Jane Does 1- 10 and others similarly situated, the Defendants, Case No. 701731/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Marguerite A. Grays. Europa Electric of NY Corp. is in the electric services business. The Plaintiff is represented by: KING & KING LLP. 629 Fifth Ave. Pelham, NY 10803 Telephone: (914) 380 5970 E-mail: pkutil@king-king-law.com The Defendants are represented by: SACCO & FILLAS, LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 746-3440 E-mail: info@saccofillas.com FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Cradle 'n Swings Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 34,000 Cradle 'n Swings. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. When the seat peg is not fully engaged the seat can fall unexpectedly, posing a risk of injury to the child. This recall includes three models of the Fisher-Price cradle swings: CHM84 Soothing Savanna Cradle 'n Swing, CMR40 Sweet Surroundings Cradle 'n Swing, and CMR43 Sweet Surroundings Butterfly Friends Cradle 'n Swing. The swings have two different swinging motions -- rocking side-to-side, or swinging head-to-toe, and six different swing speeds from low to high. The product number is located on the seat under the pad. Fisher-Price has received two reports of a seat peg coming out from the seat, causing the seat to fall. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/lgC7Qx The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at buybuyBaby, Target and other stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com and other websites from November 2015 through March 2016 for about $170. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cradle swing and contact Fisher-Price for revised assembly instructions. FIRST NIAGARA: MOU Reached in KeyCorp Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------- First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, that First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. ("First Niagara"), each of its directors and KeyCorp on March 8, 2016, entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a putative consolidated class action captioned In re First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Case No. 812908/2015 (the "Actions"), pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County (the "Court"). The Actions relate to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 30, 2015, by and between KeyCorp and First Niagara. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, First Niagara and KeyCorp agreed to make available additional information to the stockholders of First Niagara and KeyCorp. The additional information is contained in the supplement (the "Supplement") to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus of KeyCorp and First Niagara, dated February 4, 2016 (the "Joint Proxy Statement"). The Supplement should be read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy Statement and the documents incorporated by reference therein. After reaching agreement on the substantive terms of the settlement, the parties also agreed that the plaintiffs may apply to the Court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid by First Niagara, its successor in interest and/or its insurer. First Niagara, KeyCorp and the other defendants deny all of the allegations made by plaintiffs in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless, First Niagara, KeyCorp and the other defendants have agreed to settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation. FLOOD BROTHERS: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Johnson and Eldridge Cooper, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Flood Brothers, Inc. and John Flood, Case No. 1:16-cv-01289-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a commercial moving and storage company in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com FLYING J: Court Terminates "Duke" Suits --------------------------------------- In the case captioned LESLEY DUKE, Plaintiff, v. FLYING J, INC., Defendant. LESLIE DUKE, Plaintiff, v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Nos. C 15-2564 PJH, C 15-2566 PJH (N.D. Cal.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the plaintiff's motion to transfer venue and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Rushing v. Alon, Case No. 06-7621, was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 13, 2006, as a proposed class action, asserting claims against numerous defendants under the consumer protection laws of Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The original plaintiffs' claims all arose from the retail sale of gasoline and diesel fuel. The plaintiffs alleged that because the volume of motor fuel expands as its temperature rises, selling a gallon of motor fuel (231 cubic inches at 60 degrees Fahrenheit) at a temperature exceeding 60 degrees Fahrenheit ("hot fuel") without disclosing that fact to consumers or adjusting the price to compensate constituted an unlawful and deceptive business practice. In the first amended complaint, filed March 4, 2007, the plaintiffs added claims under the consumer protection laws of Arkansas, Nevada, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, plus a claim of breach of contract. On July 9, 2007, the case was transferred to MDL No. 1840 in the District of Kansas, Case No. 07-MD-1840, where it was coordinated for pretrial proceedings. On August 30, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional remand order, directing that the claims asserted against certain defendants be remanded to this court. The MDL court subsequently severed the claims asserted against each of four defendants, created three new cases, and remanded all four to the Northern District of California. The sole remaining plaintiff in the remanded cases was Lesley Duke. Duke then sought an order transferring the cases to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Pilot/Flying J, on the other hand, sought summary judgment against the plaintiff, as to all claims asserted against them. Denying Duke's motion to transfer venue, Judge Hamilton found that Duke has not met his burden of showing that transfer is warranted under either 28 U.S.C. section 1406(a) or 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a). As to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, Judge Hamilton found that the plaintiff cannot establish breach of contract, nor can he prevail on his claim of violation of state consumer laws. Finally, while not necessary to the decision, Judge Hamilton found that summary judgment is appropriate for the additional reasons argued by the defendants -- that the claims present nonjusticiable political questions, and that they are barred under the doctrine of field preemption. A full-text copy of Judge Hamilton's April 11, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/KpFTyBfrom Leagle.com. Flying J Inc, Defendant, represented by Amy Crouch -- amcrouch@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Tristan L. Duncan -- tlduncan@shb.com -- Shook Hardy Bacon LLP, Mathew Lee Larsen -- mlarsen@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon & Tammy Beth Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.. FLYING TIGER: Recalls Wooden Toy Blocks and Giraffes ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Flying Tiger Copenhagen, of New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Wooden Toy Blocks and Giraffes. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Parts of the wooden toys can become detached, resulting in small pieces that can pose a choking hazard to young children. This recall involves Flying Tiger Copenhagen wooden blocks and wooden giraffe toys. The Twist & Lock blocks were sold in a combination of blue, green and yellow and red, pink and yellow. Item number 1701354 is printed on the packaging for the blocks. The Twist & Lock giraffe toys were sold in pink and red combination and a yellow and orange combination. Item number 1701493 is printed on the packaging for the giraffe. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/8rQN9s The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Flying Tiger Copenhagen in New York from November 2015 through December 2015 for about $3. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys from young children and return the products to Flying Tiger Copenhagen for a full refund. FREIGHTQUOTE.COM: Collective Action Deal in "Koehler" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned NANCY KOEHLER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. FREIGHTQUOTE.COM, INC. and FREIGHTQUOTE 401(k) PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 12-2505-DDC-GLR (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Collective Action Settlement and for Approval of Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses. The plaintiffs Nancy Koehler, Regina Brisbane, John Smith, and Scott Matney, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that the defendant Freightquote.com, Inc. improperly classified them as salaried employees exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirements. On March 18, 2015, the court conditionally certified the plaintiffs' claims as a collective action for three subclasses of persons. The plaintiffs then asked the court to certify a final collective action, approve the settlement as fair and reasonable, and award the proposed attorney's fees and costs in an amount equal to one- third of the settlement. Judge Crabtree concluded that a final collective action certification is appropriate. However, the judge found that the confidentiality provisions and proposed service awards in the proposed settlement agreement are not fair and equitable to all parties. A full-text copy of Judge Crabtree's April 11, 2016 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/qZZw4ffrom Leagle.com. Nancy Koehler, Regina Brisbane, John Smith, Scott Matney, Lisa Holmes, Jana Norwood, Timothy Johnston, Katherine Mahnken, Victor Villarreal, Marisa Gulley, James L. Miller, Robin Bishop, David Wooley, Craig Caskey, Andrea G. Laudick, Laron Bryant, Brad Jordan, Ernest Pazar, Carlos Pinno, Nancy Peterman, Rafael Javier Sanchez, Jeremy Flowers, Scott Kerber, Jason M. Meyer, John L. Hole, David Mazzarese, Patricia Renee Roe, Shane A. Abel, Brett A. Adams, John H. Amaro, Kendall L. Bailey, Jessie Baker, Asa E. Barnes, Joseph A. Bove, Tammi Boyd, Michael K. Brown, Zachary P. Buehrer, Shivon M. Bullock, Wendy D. Burton, Joel E. Cansler, Craig S. Caskey, Donna D. Claibourn, Billy L. Collins, II, Sally D. Crews, Timothy P. Cronley, Daniel J. Crowe, William J. Currie, Ben T. Custer, John R. Davidson, Mark M. Davidson, Chelsea L. Deeney, Ian M. Dickerson, Tina D. Espy, Lee A. Fadler, Richard L. Fiene, Susan E. Folsom, Chad C. Fordham, Sean A. Fuller, Ryan J. Gaus, Tyler D. Gillis, Mary C. Gonzales, Vickie L. Hersh, Christopher P. Hittner, Mark A. Ingebritson, Richard Jackson, William E. Johnson, Mindy M. Joyce, James R. Kendel, Patrick M. Korte, Shawn Krysa, Stephen S. Kuhn, Tara L. Land, James W. Langley, Samuel Lewin, Michael S. Loehr, Justin D. Long, Stephanie M. Long, Rachel N. Lehman, Jeffrey M. Manning, Michael J. Manning, David J. Marcotte, Barbara J. Martin, Kyle J. Martin, Jody L. Mayer-Johnson, Joseph R. Meyers, Dane Miller, James L. Miller, John W. Mullies, Kristi J. Nelson, Don X. Nguyen, Andrew D. Noble, Jana S. Norwood, Traci L. O'Connor, Jason L. Payne, Ernest G. Pazar, Dorian A. Petty, Alex Pintos, Maxwell C. Remund, Misty M. Rivera, Zachary W. Roser, Timothy A. Saunders, David P. Shadle, Brian P. Shoffner, William W. Shope, Christian M. Shuster, Jade O. Sifers, Mitchell Simons, David G. Simpson, Courtney A. Smith, Anthony D. Strick, Josiah Summers, Lynn M. Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Michael Thompson, Margaret Tyler, Claudia A. Velasco, Tonya L. Vernon, Joslene D. Wakefield, Gary W. Watson, Wayne G. Weidhaas, Meghan E. Wheat, Jeffery A. Wolfe, Kevin M. Yardley, Stephanie A. Abbott, Daniel J. Arzoian, Jacquelyn M. Brooks, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy M. Grace, ERISA Logic LLC, Kathryn J. Starrett Rickley -- krickley@workerwagerights.com -- Osman & Smay, LLP & Matthew Edward Osman -- mosman@workerwagerights.com -- Osman & Smay, LLP. Tiara Caldwell, Robert D. Dorman, Brett R. Enkelmann, John R. Hannah, Eric T. Harabin, Patrick S. Henley, Rebekah A. Hicks, Sarah M. Punzo, Curt M. Stakston, Felipe J. Vargas, Eric W. Benson, Jeffery A. Foldenaur, Marcel S. Gutierrez, Thomas J. Lonergan, Kathryn L. Pavao, David M. Roberson, Aaron T. Welch, Lucas D. Whalen, Antoine Newbill, Kelly M. Olson, Jason B. Savage, Michael H. Simons, Ramon Sparks, Kyle Brewer, John McCarthy, Regan Russell, Brett Wolfe, Jeffrey M. Levy, Carrie B. Green, Sam A. Goade, Paul Warren Ray, Edward Scott Register, Ryan P. Ridgway, Thomas H. Finken, Byron A. Edstrom, Jamaal T. Mondaine, Paula J. Myers, Jamie T. Raven, Edgar Rollins, Gregory Lipsky, Patrick Keenan, Plaintiff, represented by Kathryn J. Starrett Rickley, Osman & Smay, LLP & Matthew Edward Osman, Osman & Smay, LLP. Stephen G. Rolf, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Edward Osman, Osman & Smay, LLP. Freightquote.com, Inc., Freightquote 401(K) Plan, Defendants, represented by Julianne P. Story -- juliann.story@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP & Paul F. Pautler, Jr. -- paul.pautler@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP. FRESH MARKET: "Sherman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------- Bruce S. Sherman and Bruce & Cynthia Sherman Charitable Foundation, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Ray Berry, Michael Casey, Jeffrey Naylor, Richard Noll, Bob Sasser, Robert Shearer, Michael Tucci, Steven Tanger, Jane Thompson, Apollo Global Management, LLC, Apollo Management VIII, L.P., Pomegranate Holdings, Inc. and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 12205 (Del. Ch. Ct., April 14, 2016), seeks to enjoin consummation of the merger between Fresh Market and Pomegranate Holdings, Inc.; rescissory damages; reasonable attorney's and experts' fees; and such other and further equitable relief for violation of Sec. 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendant claims that the Fresh Market's merger with Pomegranate Holdings, Inc. did not undergo the proper process and that it is an undervalued and onerous deal. Fresh Market is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with principal executive offices at 628 Green Valley Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27408. Ray Berry, Richard Anicetti, Jeffrey Naylor, Michael Tucci, Steven Tanger, Richard Noll, Bob Sasser, Jane Thompson, Michael Casey and Robert Shearer are members of the Board of Directors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Kerr BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 501-9000 - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Delaney" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Delaney, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. FTS International Services, LLC and J-W Energy Company, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 4:16-cv-00662-YK (M.D. Penn., April 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a well completion company in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com - and - Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 420 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com rswartz@swartz-legal.com FU JIN: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Fu Jin, Inc. d/b/a Tofu Chinese & Japanese Restaurant, Jiang Chuang You, Fu Jin Jiang and John Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01939 (April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Chinese/Japanese restaurant located at 1260 Waverly Avenue, Farmingville, New York 11738. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Chein" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit & Collection Corp. The case is captioned Menachem Chein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01949 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016). Global Credit engages in collection activities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com GRAND TAVERN: "Francois" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Alain Francois, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Grand Tavern of Delray, LLC and Victor Lucaj, Case No. 9:16-cv- 80622-DM (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant/establishment which primarily engages in selling and serving to purchasers prepared food and beverages for consumption on or off the premises. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com HEALTHWAYS INC: "Simon" Suit Proceeds in California --------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit in California over the Junk Fax Prevention Act is proceeding after a court denied the plaintiff's motion to stay the case. On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary, Healthways Wholehealth Networks, Inc ("HWHN"), were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Edward Simon, DC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an "unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), those sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient). The complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The case has been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division ("California Matter"). On December 22, 2014, HWHN was also named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Affiliated Health Care Associates, P.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois common law in connection with faxes allegedly sent to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount. On May 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the Illinois Matter voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice; that plaintiff has been joined as a party in the California Matter. In connection with these actions, on March 2, 2015, Healthways and HWHN filed with the FCC a Petition for Retroactive Waiver ("Waiver Petition") of the FCC's regulation that requires advertising faxes sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient to include an "opt-out" notice. On August 28, 2015, the FCC granted the Company relief requested in the Waiver Petition. We cannot predict the impact on the California Matter of the FCC's grant of relief pursuant to the Waiver Petition. On December 17, 2015, the court in the California Matter denied a class certification motion by the plaintiff and on February 1, 2016, denied the plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings. "The litigation in the California Matter continues, and we intend to vigorously defend the allegations," the Company said. HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Rudel Suit in District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- Rudel Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02229-AET-LHG (D.N.J., April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Anne E. Thompson. Heartland Payment provides payment card processing to enterprise- quality solutions in security, payroll, and lending. The Plaintiff is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 2600 Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1K Jersey City, NJ 07306 Telephone: (201) 200 0900 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com HILTON GRAND: Faces "Glasser" Suit in Middle District Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC. The case is captioned Melanie Glasser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv- 00952-JDW-EAJ (M.D. Fla., April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. James D. Whittemore. Hilton Grand develops, manages, markets, and operates a system of brand-name vacation club ownership (timeshares) resorts. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 210-A South MacDill Avenue Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 500 1500 Facsimile: (813) 435 2369 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com HOME DEPOT: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Automatic Telephone Dialing ------------------------------------------------------------- Tzvee Rotberg, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02959 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendant allegedly violated the TCPA by using and continuing to use an automatic telephone dialing systems to transmit text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephones without prior express consent. Home Depot is an American retailer of home improvement and construction products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Domenic Romano, Esq. ROMANO LAW PLLC 55 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 865 9848 Facsimile: (646) 661 4599 E-mail: domenic@romanolaw.com I.C. SYSTEMS: Faces "Zeccardi" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against I.C. Systems, Inc. The case is captioned Rocky Zeccardi, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. I.C. Systems, Inc., and John Does 1- 10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02266-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April 21, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Susan D. Wigenton. I.C. System is a collection agency since 1938. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl. Hackensack, N.J. 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 Facsimile: (201) 273 7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com INNER CITY: "Schneider" Suit Seeks Reimbursement Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michel Schneider, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Inner City Education Foundation, a California Non-Profit Corporation, and Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. BC617827 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 21, 2016), seeks to recover monetary and equitable relief Including reimbursable expenditures, interest, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, under the Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and Expense Class to drive their own vehicles to meetings and other events in order to fulfill their duties as employees. The Defendant allegedly did not reimburse Plaintiff for the expense of using their own vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542 2100 Facsimile: (213) 542 2101 E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com INTERNATIONAL METALS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eugenio Reyes Gamez and all others similarly situated v. International Metals Trading Corp., Adiany Perez, Alex J. Fagundo, Case No. 1:16-cv-21407-FAM (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants operate a metal manufacturing company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Carmona" Suit in District of New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Carmona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, and John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02215-WHW-CLW (D.N.J., April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. William H. Walls. Jefferson Capital is a debt collector which provides traditional and unique recovery services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com yzelman@marcuszelman.com KEY ENERGY: Defending Wage and Hour Suit Class Suits in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. Two of the five cases have been consolidated in United States District Court for the Central District of California. On December 22, 2015, that court issued an order granting in part and denying in part a class certification motion. The court certified a class of hourly paid, non-exempt oilfield employees who allege they did not receive reimbursement for all business expenses and allege they did not receive all rest breaks required by California law. The court did not determine whether Key is liable to any of the class members. The court in one of the remaining cases that had been stayed pending outcome of the class certification motion recently issued an order lifting the stay. The fourth case is waiting for a decision regarding whether it will move forward in California state court or in federal court. The fifth case is an enforcement action for civil penalties based on California's Private Attorneys General Act, which is pending in California state court. "We have investigated the claims in all five lawsuits, and intend to vigorously defend them. At this time, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss," the Company said. KEY ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Houston, Texas Class Action Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court has not ruled on a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit in Houston, Texas. In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5, Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Those lawsuits were styled as follows: Sean Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed on August 15, 2014; and Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4.14-cv-2403, filed on August 21, 2014. On December 11, 2014, the Court entered an order that consolidated the two lawsuits into one action, along with any future filed tag- along actions brought on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy Services, Inc. common stock. The order also appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the class action and approved the law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as lead counsel for the consolidated class and Kendall Law Group, LLP, as local counsel for the consolidated class. The lead plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on February 13, 2015. Among other changes, the consolidated amended complaint adds Taylor M. Whichard III and Newton W. Wilson III as defendants, and seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between September 4, 2012 and July 17, 2014. Defendants Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, J. Marshall Dodson and Newton W. Wilson III filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 14, 2015. Defendant Taylor M. Whichard III filed a Joinder in Motion and Motion to Dismiss on the same date. Lead plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion, and all defendants filed reply briefs in support of the motion. The court has not ruled upon it. "Because this case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss," the Company said. KEY ENERGY: Merit-Based Discovery to Begin in Corpus Christi Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that parties in one collective action lawsuit in Corpus Christi, Texas, will begin merit-based discovery. In March 2015, two collective action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). "We agreed to conditional certification in the first lawsuit and notice of the case issued to 56 putative class members," the Company said. "Roughly 20% of the eligible putative class members timely filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit. We will soon begin merit-based discovery in the first lawsuit, which will last at least six months. We also agreed to conditional certification in the second lawsuit and notice of the case recently issued to 14 putative class members." "Four putative class members, including the named plaintiff, have filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit thus far and there is approximately a month and a half remaining for others to join. The parties will begin merit-based discovery in the second case as soon as the notice period closes. Because the cases are in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss for either case." KEY ENERGY: 15% of Eligible Members Join Houston Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that roughly 15% of eligible putative class members have consented to join in a class action lawsuit in Houston, Texas. In May 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging violations of the FLSA and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. "We agreed to conditional certification of a putative class and notice issued to 174 putative class members. The notice period closed in early February and roughly 15% of eligible putative class members timely filed a consent to join the lawsuit. The parties will soon begin merit-based discovery in this case, which will likely last six to nine months. Because the case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss for this case." MAALT SPECIALIZED: Violated FLSA, "Tenboer" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Devin Tenboer, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Maalt Specialized Bulk, LLC, Maalt, LP, Vista Sand, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00283-A (N.D. Tex., April 21, 2016), seeks redress for violations by Defendants of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Texas common law. The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiff wages earned. Maalt Transport is offers logistic solution for the bulk transport of frac sand. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: 856-685-7420 E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com MARRIOTT HOTEL: "McCray" Suit Moved from Super. Ct to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Ian McCray, an individual, and on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, SJMEC, Inc., and a California corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 16CV291271, was removed from Santa Clara Superior Court, to the US District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The Northern District assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02092 to the proceeding. Marriott Hotel provides hospitality and lodging facilities worldwide. The Plaintiff appears pro se. MAZDA MOTOR: Sued in Cal. Over Defective 2010-15 Mazda 3 Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Humphrey, Iris Gonzalez, Charles Bunch, Anne Stom, David Woodward, Greg Thomason, Lisa Massa and Dan Carney, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv- 02087 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2016), is brought on behalf of all current and former Mazda vehicle owners and lessees with defective clutch release levers, bearings, and pins (or pivots) ("Clutch Release Assemblies") in Model Year 2010-15 Mazda 3 vehicles incorporating 5-speed and 6-speed manual transmissions. Mazda Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation that designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and warrants Mazda automobiles. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. is Mazda's sales and marketing division, which oversees sales and other operations across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com - and - Bryan Clobes, Esq. Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWEATHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market St., Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com ktucker@caffertyclobes.com - and - Daniel Herrera, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWEATHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Suits by Fresno Bee Carriers Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend class action lawsuits by carriers of the Fresno Bee. The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the class in these cases. The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement." "With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. "The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into three separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the third phase will address restitution, if any. "On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent contractors. "We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately adopted it as final. The court has not yet established a date for the second and third phases of trial concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any restitution. "The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase will address restitution, if any. The first phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in late March 2015. The parties are awaiting a ruling on the first phase. "We are defending these actions vigorously and expect that we will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we believe that a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could result in future charges that could have a material impact. We have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and developments in litigation." MDL 1840: Costco Wholesale's Appeal Pending ------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended February 14, 2016, that the Company's appeal is pending in the case, Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840. denied on January 23, 2015. Final judgment was entered on September 22, 2015, and the Company has filed a notice of appeal. Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class members. On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24, 2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement. A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to class representatives. A report and recommendation has been issued in favor of a fee award of $3.8, to which the Company is objecting. On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other defendants. The motion was denied on January 23, 2015. Final judgment was entered on September 22, 2015, and the Company has filed a notice of appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company operates membership warehouses based on the concept that offering our members low prices on a limited selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a wide range of merchandise categories will produce high sales volumes and rapid inventory turnover. MDL 2179: BP Plc Provides Updates of Macondo Oil Spill Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ BP p.l.c., in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on multi-district litigation proceedings in federal district court in New Orleans for the remaining cases (MDL 2179). BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BPXP) was lease operator of Mississippi Canyon, Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico (Macondo), where the semi-submersible rig Deepwater Horizon was deployed at the time of the 20 April 2010 explosions and fire and resulting oil spill (the Incident). The other working interest owners at the time of the Incident were Anadarko Petroleum Company (Anadarko) and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC, claims against whom were settled by BP in 2011. The Deepwater Horizon, which was owned and operated by certain affiliates of Transocean Ltd. (Transocean), sank on 22 April 2010. Lawsuits and claims arising from the Incident have generally been brought in US federal and state courts. The lawsuits have asserted, among others, claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), claims for personal injury in connection with the Incident itself and the response to it, wrongful death, commercial and economic injury, breach of contract and violations of statutes. The plaintiffs include individuals, corporations, insurers and governmental entities and many of the lawsuits purport to be class actions. Many of the lawsuits in federal court were consolidated by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into two multi- district litigation proceedings, one in federal district court in Houston for the securities, derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) cases (MDL 2185) and another in federal district court in New Orleans for the remaining cases (MDL 2179). A Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) was established to act on behalf of individual and business plaintiffs in MDL 2179. MDL 2179 - Department of Justice (DoJ) Action and Trial of Liability, Limitation, Exoneration and Fault Allocation The US filed a civil complaint in MDL 2179 against BPXP and others on 15 December 2010 (the DoJ Action). The complaint sought an order finding liability under OPA 90 for natural resources damages and civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA). To address certain issues asserted in or relevant to the claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims, and comparative fault defences raised in the DoJ Action, a Trial of Liability, Limitation, Exoneration and Fault Allocation (the Trial) in MDL 2179 commenced on 25 February 2013. The district court issued its ruling on the first phase of the Trial in September 2014. BPXP, BP America Production Company (BPAPC) and various other parties were each found liable under general maritime law for the blowout, explosion and oil spill from the Macondo well. With respect to the United States' claim against BPXP under the CWA, the district court found that the discharge of oil was the result of BPXP's gross negligence and wilful misconduct and that BPXP was therefore subject to enhanced civil penalties. The district court issued its ruling on the second phase of the Trial in January 2015. It found that 3.19 million barrels of oil were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico and were therefore subject to a CWA penalty. In addition, the district court found that BP was not grossly negligent in its source control efforts. BP appealed both rulings. The penalty phase of the Trial involved consideration of the amount of CWA civil penalties owed to the United States, and concluded in February 2015. Briefing concluded on the post-trial briefing schedule for the penalty phase on 24 April 2015. State and local authority claims consolidated into MDL 2179 On 12 August 2010, the State of Alabama filed a lawsuit seeking damages for alleged economic and environmental harms, including natural resource damages, civil penalties under state law, declaratory and injunctive relief, and punitive damages as a result of the Incident. On 3 March 2011, the State of Louisiana filed a lawsuit to declare various BP entities (as well as other entities) liable for removal costs and damages, including natural resource damages under federal and state law, to recover civil penalties, attorney's fees and response costs under state law, and to recover for alleged negligence, nuisance, trespass, fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation of material facts regarding safety procedures and BP's (and other defendants') ability to manage the oil spill, unjust enrichment from economic and other damages to the State of Louisiana and its citizens, and punitive damages. In addition, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued an administrative order seeking environmental civil penalties and other relief under state law. On 10 December 2010, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality issued a Complaint and Notice of Violation alleging violations of several state environmental statutes. In April 2013, the states of Alabama, Florida and Mississippi each filed actions against BP related to the Incident, including general maritime law claims of negligence, gross negligence, and wilful misconduct; claims under OPA 90 seeking damages for removal costs, natural resource damages, property damage, lost tax and other revenue and damages for providing increased public services during or after removal activities; and various state law claims. On 17 May 2013, the State of Texas filed suit against BP and others in federal court in Texas. Its complaint asserted claims under OPA 90 for natural resource damages, lost sales tax and state park revenue; claims for natural resource damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and claims for natural resource damages, cost recovery, civil penalties and economic damages under state environmental statutes. Each of these actions filed by the Gulf Coast states was consolidated with MDL 2179. On 28 August 2015, the district court in MDL 2179 issued an order dismissing the local government entity master complaint in view of the fact that the vast majority of local government entity plaintiffs who had preserved their claims had released their claims as part of the local government entity settlement with BPXP. With respect to claims by local government entities that have not released their claims, the court held that they are time- barred except to the extent that those local government entities previously made timely presentment of their claims under OPA 90 and previously filed either a complaint or a valid short-form joinder in the MDL 2179 master complaint for local government entities. Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement On 2 July 2015, BP announced that BPXP had executed agreements in principle with the United States federal government and five Gulf Coast states to settle all federal and state claims arising from the Incident. In addition to settling claims with the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, BPXP also settled the claims made by more than 400 local government entities. On 5 October 2015, the United States lodged with the district court in MDL 2179 a proposed Consent Decree between the United States, the Gulf states and BP to fully and finally resolve any and all natural resource damages claims of the United States, the Gulf states and their respective natural resource trustees and all CWA penalty claims, and certain other claims of the United States and the Gulf states. Concurrently, BP entered into a definitive Settlement Agreement with the five Gulf states (Settlement Agreement) with respect to state claims for economic, property and other losses. The United States is expected to file a motion with the court to enter the Consent Decree as a final settlement around the end of March, which the court will then consider. The time period for public comments on the Consent Decree ended on 4 December 2015. The proposed Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement are conditional upon each other and neither will become effective unless there is final court approval of the Consent Decree. A further condition of the agreements in principle was that local government entities execute releases to BP's satisfaction. BP advised the court that it was satisfied with and has accepted releases received from the vast majority of local entities. Accordingly, on 27 July 2015, the district court ordered BP to commence processing payments required under the releases and BP made such payments in accordance with the court's order. The principal payments are as follows: -- BPXP is to pay the United States a civil penalty of $5.5 billion under the CWA - payable over 15 years. -- BPXP will pay $7.1 billion to the United States and the five Gulf states over 15 years for natural resource damages (NRD). This is in addition to the $1 billion already committed for early restoration. BPXP will also set aside an additional amount (up to $700 million) consisting of $232 million and the NRD interest payment (see below) partly to cover any further natural resource damages that are unknown at the time of the agreement. -- A total of $4.9 billion will be paid over 18 years to settle economic and other claims made by the five Gulf Coast states. -- Up to $1 billion to resolve claims made by more than 400 local government entities. BPXP has also agreed to pay $350 million to cover outstanding NRD assessment costs and $250 million to cover the full settlement of outstanding response costs, claims related to the False Claims Act and royalties owed for the Macondo well. These additional payments will be paid over nine years, beginning in 2015. NRD and CWA payments are scheduled to start 12 months after the Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement become effective. The 2016 payments in respect of the state claims are due within 90 days of the Settlement Agreement becoming effective. Total payments for NRD, CWA and state claims will be made at a rate of around $1.1 billion a year for the majority of the payment period. Interest will accrue at a fixed rate on the unpaid balance of the CWA and NRD payments, compounded annually and payable in year 16. To address possible natural resource damages unknown at the time of the settlement, beginning 10 years after the Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement become effective, the federal government and the five Gulf states may request accelerated payment of accrued but unpaid interest on the NRD payments. Parent company guarantees for these payments will be provided by BP Corporation North America Inc. as the primary guarantor and BP p.l.c. as the secondary guarantor. The federal government and the Gulf states may jointly elect to accelerate the payments under the Consent Decree in the event of a change of control or insolvency of BP p.l.c., and the Gulf states individually have similar acceleration rights under the Settlement Agreement. The proposed Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement do not cover the remaining costs of the 2012 class action settlements with the PSC for economic and property damage and medical claims. They also do not cover claims by individuals and businesses that opted out of the 2012 PSC settlements and/or whose claims were excluded from them, including claims for recovery of losses allegedly resulting from the 2010 federal deepwater drilling moratoria and/or the related permitting processes. The proposed Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement also do not resolve private securities litigation pending in MDL 2185. On 5 October 2015, on the joint motion of BP and the five Gulf states, the district court dismissed the five Gulf states' claims (with the exception of claims for NRD and CWA penalties being addressed by the proposed Consent Decree) against BP. The dismissal is without prejudice pending the court's entry of the Consent Decree, which is required for the Settlement Agreement with the Gulf states to become effective, at which time the dismissal would be converted into a dismissal with prejudice. OPA 90 Test Case Proceedings A number of lawsuits have been brought, primarily from business claimants, under OPA 90 in relation to the 2010 federal deepwater drilling moratoria. Following the dismissal of one test case in January 2016, six test cases, consolidated with MDL 2179, will address certain OPA 90 liability questions focusing on, among other issues, whether plaintiffs' alleged losses tied to the moratoria and whether federal permit delays are compensable. In December 2015, BP filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims arising from the moratoria or permit process, and plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to prevent BP from arguing that government action and/or inaction following the oil spill is a 'superseding' cause with respect to some or all of the damages that plaintiffs claim. The motions are fully briefed, but the court has not yet issued a ruling. Halliburton and Transocean settlements. On 20 May 2015, BP and Transocean, and BP and Halliburton Energy Services Inc. (Halliburton), entered into confidential settlement agreements to resolve the final remaining disputes between these parties stemming from the Incident. Under the agreement with Transocean, BPXP and BPAPC agreed to indemnify Transocean for compensatory damages (including natural resource damages), to pay Transocean $125 million in compensation for incurred legal fees, and discontinue attempts to recover as an additional insured under Transocean's liability policies. Transocean agreed to indemnify BPXP and BPAPC for the personal and bodily injury claims of Transocean employees, as well as for claims relating to any future cleanup or removal of diesel or other pollutants stored on the Deepwater Horizon. BPXP, BPAPC, and Transocean will mutually release all claims between the companies. BPXP's agreement with Halliburton resolves the remaining claims between the two companies and includes indemnities and the dismissal of all claims against each other. Agreement for early natural resource restoration On 21 April 2011, BP announced an agreement with natural resource trustees for the US and five Gulf Coast states, providing for up to $1 billion to be spent on early restoration projects to address natural resource injuries resulting from the Incident. To date, BP and the trustees have reached agreement on a total of 65 early restoration projects that are expected to cost approximately $877 million. The remaining unpaid balance of the $1 billion will be paid within 30 days after court approval of the proposed Consent Decree. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Trustees would continue to implement these early restoration projects as part of the final settlement of all US and state claims for natural resource damages. PSC settlements - Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement The Economic and Property Damages Settlement resolves certain economic and property damage claims, and includes a $2.3 billion BP commitment to help resolve economic loss claims related to the Gulf seafood industry -- the Seafood Compensation Fund -- and a $57-million fund to support advertising to promote Gulf Coast tourism. It also resolves property damage in certain areas along the Gulf Coast, as well as claims for additional payments under certain Master Vessel Charter Agreements entered into in the course of the Vessels of Opportunity Program implemented as part of the response to the Incident. The Economic and Property Damages Settlement does not cover claims by individuals and businesses that opted out of the 2012 PSC settlements and/or whose claims were excluded from them, including claims for recovery of losses allegedly resulting from the 2010 federal deepwater drilling moratoria and/or the related permitting processes. The Economic and Property Damages Settlement also does not resolve private securities litigation pending in MDL 2185. The economic and property damages claims process is under court supervision through the settlement claims process established by the Economic and Property Damages Settlement. This provides that class members release and dismiss their claims against BP not expressly reserved by that agreement. The Economic and Property Damages Settlement also provided that, to the extent permitted by law, BP assigned to the PSC certain of its claims, rights and recoveries against Transocean and Halliburton for damages with protections such that Transocean and Halliburton cannot pass those damages through to BP. The claims facility operating under the framework established by the Economic and Property Damages Settlement commenced operation in June 2012. Following numerous court decisions on 31 March 2015, the court denied the PSC's motion seeking to alter or amend a revised policy, addressing the matching of revenue and expenses for business economic loss claims, which requires the matching of revenue with the expenses incurred by claimants to generate that revenue, even where the revenue and expenses were recorded at different times. On 23 April 2015, the PSC appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit. On 18 December 2015, the PSC and BP entered into a joint stipulation to stay this appeal pending resolution of certain issues in the district court in New Orleans. On 8 January 2016, the Fifth Circuit granted the joint stipulation and stayed the appeal for 120 days. The effective date of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement was 8 December 2014, and the final deadline for filing all claims other than those that fall into the Seafood Compensation Program was 8 June 2015. On 8 May 2015, the Fifth Circuit upheld three awards to non-profit entities under the Economic and Property Damages Settlement, each of which was premised on an official policy that typically treated grant monies and contributions to non-profit entities as revenue for purposes of the settlement's calculations. BP argued that this policy was inconsistent with the language of the settlement agreement and would place the agreement in violation of United States law, but the Fifth Circuit upheld the policy and determined that the district court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in denying review of the three awards. The court also held that requests for discretionary review of settlement claims by BP or individual claimants under the Economic and Property Damages Settlement can be appealed by BP or individual claimants to the Fifth Circuit. PSC settlements - Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement The Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (Medical Settlement) resolves certain medical claims by response workers and Gulf Coast residents. Under the Medical Settlement, class members release and dismiss their claims against BP covered by that settlement, except that class members do not release certain claims for later- manifested physical conditions (LMPCs). The Medical Settlement involves payments to qualifying class members based on a matrix for certain Specified Physical Conditions (SPCs), as well as a 21-year Periodic Medical Consultation Program (PMCP) for qualifying class members. The Medical Settlement also provides that class members claiming LMPCs may pursue their claims through a mediation/litigation process, but waive, among other things, the right to seek punitive damages. Consistent with its commitment to the Gulf, BP has also agreed to provide $105 million to the Gulf Region Health Outreach Program to improve the availability, scope and quality of healthcare in certain Gulf Coast communities. This healthcare outreach programme will be available to, and is intended to benefit, class members and other individuals in those communities. BP has already funded $93.7 million for projects sponsored by this programme. The district court approved the Medical Settlement in a final order and judgment on 11 January 2013. The effective date was 12 February 2014 and the deadline for submitting claims was 12 February 2015. The total number of claims estimated by the Medical Claims Administrator is approximately 37,200. At year end, approximately 7,600 SPC claims, totalling approximately $17 million, have been approved for compensation. In addition, approximately 22,000 claimants have been determined eligible for the PMCP. MDL 2185: July 5 Trial on Securities Fraud Claims ------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c., in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates of MDL 2185 and other securities-related litigation. Since the Macondo incident, shareholders have sued BP and various of its current and former officers and directors asserting shareholder derivative claims and class and individual securities fraud claims. Many of these lawsuits have been consolidated or co- ordinated in federal district court in Houston (MDL 2185). On 20 May 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a proposed class of ADS purchasers before the Deepwater Horizon explosion (from 8 November 2007 to 20 April 2010) and granted plaintiffs' motions to certify a class of post-explosion ADS purchasers from 26 April 2010 to 28 May 2010 and to amend their complaint to add one additional alleged misstatement. The parties appealed the district court's class certification decisions and on 8 September 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed both of the district court's decisions. On 26 October 2015, the Fifth Circuit denied the pre-explosion ADS purchasers' motion for rehearing en banc. On 25 January 2016, the pre-explosion ADS purchasers filed in the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fifth Circuit's decision. The trial of the securities fraud claims of the class of post explosion ADS purchasers has been scheduled to commence on 5 July 2016. MDL 2280: Cert. Bids in Morgan Stanley Wage & Hour Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION MDL 2280, Civ. No. 11-cv-3121 (WJM) (D.N.J.), Judge William J. Martini denied the plaintiffs' motion for certification of three class actions and motion for conditional certification of the collective action. The multidistrict litigation consists of three putative wage and hour class actions, as well as a putative collective action under the Fair Labors Standards Act, against the defendants Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (together, "MSSB"). The plaintiffs sought to represent the following classes in three separate class actions alleging violations of state wage and hour laws: 1. A New York Class that consists of all individuals, employed by MSSB in covered positions in the State of New York at any time since April 21, 2008 2. A New Jersey Class that consists of all individuals, employed by MSSB in covered positions in the State of New Jersey since April 21, 2008 3. A Connecticut Class that consists of all individuals, employed by MSSB in covered positions in the State of Connecticut at any time since April 21, 2008 The plaintiffs also sought to represent the following collective group as part of a collective action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): A Federal Collective Group that consists of all individuals who were or are employed by MSSB in Covered Positions in the United States of America, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, at any time from April 21, 2008, who timely opt-in to any such collective group As to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Judge Martini found that while the numerosity and commonality requirements have been met, the plaintiffs have failed to establish typicality or adequacy by a preponderance of the evidence. The judge also concluded that common questions do not predominate and therefore class certification would be inappropriate. As to the motion for conditional certification of the collective action, Judge Martini found that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden for conditional certification. A full-text copy of Judge Martini's April 11, 2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/9QMpPdfrom Leagle.com. Robert Gibson, Movant, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH -- smith@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP & ROBERT ABRAMS -- abrams@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP. NICK PONTILENA, DENISE OTTEN, GREGG VANASSE, Plaintiffs, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, ROBERT ABRAMS, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP & STEPHEN P. DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC. JIMMY KUHN, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, ROBERT ABRAMS, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, STEPHEN P. DENITTIS, DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC, Matthew M Guiney -- guiney@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP. HOWARD ROSENBLATT, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, ROBERT ABRAMS, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, STEPHEN P. DENITTIS, DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC, ANDREW W. SKOLNICK, HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC & DAVID A. SLOSSBERG, HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Defendant, represented by DANIEL F. MURPHY, JR. -- dmurphy@putneylaw.com -- PUTNEY, TWOMBLY, HALL & HIRSON, ESQS.,JESSICA R. PERRY, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP,MARK ANTHONY HERNANDEZ -- mhernandez@putneylaw.com -- PUTNEY TWOMBLY HALL & HIRSON LLP & TRISH M. HIGGINS -- thiggins@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP. MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., Defendant, represented by TRISH M. HIGGINS, ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP. METROPOLITAN OPERA: Faces "Riley" Suit in Southern Dist. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. The case is captioned Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02944 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016). Metropolitan Opera, a not-for-profit membership corporation, engages in sustaining, encouraging, and promoting musical art worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Xee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: info@leelitigation.com MICHAEL'S PLACE: "Ibarra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Karla Ibarra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Michael's Place, Inc., Katina Malliotakis and Michael Malliotakis, Case No. 4:16-cv-00555-DDN (E.D. Mo., April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant at 7101 Manchester Ave., St. Louis, Missouri, 63143. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Eli Karsh, Esq. LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH 230 South Bemiston, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13 Facsimile: (314) 862-0605 E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com MONRO MUFFLER: "Jarmon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Tyrone Jarmon, Jr. v. Monro Muffler Brake, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv- 01185-RDB (D. Md., April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Fair Labor Standards Act. Monro Muffler Brake, Inc. operates an automotive service company that performs maintenance and repairs on vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Spicer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: jspicer@nicholllaw.com MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Breached Repair Warranty, "Lynch" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Lynch, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Motorola Mobility, LLC d/b/a Motorola and Lenovo (United States) Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 04524 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2016), seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief as a result of Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under its express warranty to purchasers of Motorola smart phones and smart watches (Devices). According to the complaint, Motorola's express warranty provides that Motorola will repair, replace or refund the purchase price of Devices that develop defects within 12 months of purchase. Motorola allegedly breached this promise by failing to repair, replace or refund the purchase price of Plaintiff's Motorola smart watch that failed within 12 months of purchase. Motorola Mobility, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a company owned by Lenovo that develops mobile devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. Adam Prom, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 246-0022 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com mrm@wexlerwallace.com ap@wexlerwallace.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN, & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery St. Embarcadero Center W., 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956 1000 E-mail: jelias@lchb.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714 7100 Facsimile: (816) 714 7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com MRS BPO: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in Eastern District New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The case is captioned Aron Felberbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01948 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016). MRS provides accounts receivables solutions and back office solutions to improve return on investment and net back through compliant collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defends "Vo" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- MRV Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Nhan T. Vo, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. the Company, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. Management believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter and does not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition. However, depending on the actual outcome of this case, further provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results. MRV Communications, Inc. develops products and services to meet the needs of telecommunications service providers and cable operators (collectively "Service Providers"), data center operators, government entities and enterprises, including the educational, financial, healthcare and equipment manufacturing segments in North, South and Central America ("Americas"), Europe, Middle East and Africa ("EMEA") and Asia Pacific ("APAC"). NAC MARKETING: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Certain Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justices M. Margaret McKeown, Kim Mclane Wardlaw and Richard C. Tallman of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed in part the district court's ruling in the case captioned, FLOYD LUMAN; JOEL AMKRAUT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOE THEISMANN; NAC MARKETING COMPANY, LLC, DBA New Vitality, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-15385 (9th Cir.). The Ninth Circuit remanded the action for further proceedings. Plaintiffs Floyd Luman and Joel Amkraut filed a complaint brought on behalf of a putative class alleging (i) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (ii) breach of express warranty, (iii) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (v) unjust enrichment, (vi) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (vii) violation of California Unfair Competition Law, and (viii) violation of California's False Advertising Law in connection with NAC's sales of its Super Beta Prostate (SBP) product. They request declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution. The district court held that Plaintiffs' individual claims for monetary relief were rendered moot when NAC refunded Plaintiffs' money to their credit cards. The district court further held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief because they could not demonstrate a likelihood of future injury. The court reasoned that because Luman's individual claims were moot before he filed his complaint, class certification of the putative class could not relate back to the original complaint. The court further reasoned that Amkraut's claims were moot and not transitory because such claims would not expire before the court could rule on class certification. Plaintiffs appeal the district court's order granting Defendants NAC Marketing Company, LLC's (NAC) and Joe Theismann's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint brought on behalf of a putative class for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). In the Memorandum dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/QNk13sfrom Leagle.com, Justices McKeown, Wardlaw and Tallman found that the district court did not err in dismissing of Luman's individual claim for monetary relief and in determining Luman's individual claim for monetary relief. The Court also properly dismissed the claims against Theismann because he is merely the celebrity spokesperson for NAC and not the seller of SBP. The Court reversed the district court's judgment declaring Amkraut's claim moot because he satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement and had standing to sue. NATURAL HEALTH: Says Securities Class Suits in Early Stage ---------------------------------------------------------- Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has yet to respond to two securities class action lawsuits. The Company said, "In January 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California: Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corp. and Li v. Natural Health Trends Corp. (collectively, the "Class Action Complaints"). The Class Action Complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng and Timothy S. Davidson and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Sharng and Davidson. The Class Action Complaints allege, inter alia, that we made materially false and misleading statements regarding the legality of our business operations in China, including purportedly running an illegal multi-level marketing business. The Class Action Complaints seek an indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs." "The cases are both in their early stages, and we have not yet filed a response. Nevertheless, we believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in these actions." NEW YORK: Democrats Sue State Board of Elections ------------------------------------------------ Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that fourteen Long Island Democrats filed a federal class action complaint in Central Islip, N.Y. late April 18, claiming their mysteriously rejiggered party affiliations puts them in jeopardy of being disenfranchised in the primary. New York has a closed primary system, so voters can cast ballots only in the party in which they are registered. That's not fair, lead plaintiff Leonard Joseph Campanello says, calling it a "widespread and ongoing" pattern of removing eligible voters from the state's voter rolls. In their lawsuit against the State Board of Elections, Campanello and other plaintiffs say their registration was changed to other- than-Democratic without their consent. Campanello says his registration was switched to Republican through "an identical, pixel-by-pixel copy of the electronic signature appearing on his driver's license in 2007, which had been electronically transferred to the 'change of party affiliation form.'" The federal lawsuit came the night before New Yorkers take to the polls, with 247 delegates at stake in the Democratic primary and 95 in the Republican one. It's likely to be a first no matter which Democrat prevails at the national convention: the first woman presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, or the first Jewish one, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders; and, if Trump takes the Republican race, the first reality TV star. All three -- along with a host of celebrity supporters and political heavyweights, including former President Bill Clinton and the Clintons' daughter Chelsea -- have criss-crossed the Empire State, New York City and especially Brooklyn in the past few days to stump for votes in a state's closed primary system. Independent-minded New Yorkers, however, say in their lawsuit that they should be free to choose whomever they want despite their party affiliation, and that state law disenfranchises independents. As a result, the plaintiffs "are likely to be deprived of the right to vote, as have the thousands of similarly situated voters who complained to the Board of Elections regarding the improper voter registration switches and purges," the lawsuit states. "Tens of thousands of New Yorkers face the threat of disenfranchisement in the 2016 Presidential Preference Primary ... and will continue to be shut out of the democratic process until defendants reform their registration practices. "In Brooklyn alone, 63,558 Democrats have been inexplicably purged from voter rolls," according to the complaint. Plaintiffs and "thousands of other voters" seek redress in "anticipation of the tumult that will assuredly engulf" the nominating process. They call New York State's laws among the most "opaque and oppressive voter laws" in the nation. They ask the court to jump in, as that they have appealed to the Board of Election "without result." "Nothing can protect their right to vote save an order from this court." They also say a federal judge's order "will serve to foster a belief in democracy." Plaintiffs say they had already put the election board on notice that it planned to sue, but never heard back. In addition to Campanello's complaint of de facto electronic forgery, other plaintiffs say their Democratic party affiliation was switched to independent, or not registered at all, or purged, or not changed from a different party to Democrat. Justice USA, which describes itself as a "national organization advancing election integrity, transparency and the protection of voting rights for all Americans," says it's turned in 200 unsworn affidavits of voters who can't pull the lever April 19. The 2016 presidential primaries have "produced record breaking turnout and a general excitement that has motivated many people to vote who are voting for the first time or who have not voted in years," the lawsuit states. "Unfortunately, states throughout the nation have found themselves to be ill-equipped to deal with the unprecedented voter turnout, and the elections were botched causing dubious results which foster a growing sense of mistrust in the American democratic process." The plaintiffs cite the scandal in Arizona, where voters stood in line for as much as five hours after the state and Maricopa County (Phoenix) elections officials closed 70 percent of the county's polling places to save money. The Democratic National Committee sued Arizona for this on April 15. Plaintiffs in the New York lawsuit call that Arizona debacle a "disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters; a primary election result that is irreparably erroneous; and numerous contentious lawsuits with little chance of redressing the substantial constitutional violations." The Long Island plaintiffs say the stakes are high. "New York's procedure for dealing with voters who fail to appear on the rolls in the polling place is byzantine in its complexity; onerous on the burden it places on the voter; and utterly ineffective in preserving voters' rights," the lawsuit states. If a voter is not on the rolls, or his or her affiliation is incorrect, or if no party affiliation is ticked by their name, their vote will be "provisional" and "likely go uncounted." They also aim at New York's Legislature for failing to declare Election Day a holiday, leaving many voters unable to go to the polls because they can't afford to take time off from work. "Many voters are only able to carve out adequate time to cast a vote, yet are unable to take the hours that it would require to get a court order permitting them to vote if they are not on the voter rolls," the complaint states. "Others are simply too intimidated to seek a court order and decide to turn away from the polls, dejected and skeptical about the democratic process." Chief among those voters, the plaintiffs say, are blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. The issue of closed primaries spurred about 150 voters to kvetch and rally outside New York City Hall last week. Sanders, who has been a Vermont senator since 2007, also released his widely sought tax returns on Friday. At the debate a day earlier, Sanders had offered to do so if Clinton revealed the transcripts of speeches that make her big bucks on Wall Street. Those transcripts remain unaccounted for. Former President Clinton is stumping for his wife across the Empire State to "discuss Hillary Clinton's plan to raise incomes and get results for all communities, keep Americans safe and bring the country together." He was to appear in Buffalo and Rochester on April 19. The former first lady, ex-senator from New York and former secretary of state held several Get Out the Vote campaigns throughout New York City over the weekend, then held a rally Sunday night on the oft-forgotten borough of Staten Island, a traditional Republican stronghold. Sanders stumped in his own backyard of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, to deliver his message of reforming big banks and Wall Street. "This is a campaign that is bringing millions of people into the political process," Sanders said at a Sunday rally that brought 28,000 people to Prospect Park. He said he was speaking for "working people and young people who are sick and tired of establishment politics and establishment economics" and who want "a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent." Campanello et al. seek an order that they have been unlawfully purged and shall be allowed to vote, a finding that New York Election Law Sec. 8-303 (2) (b) is unconstitutional, and other relief. They are represented by Blaire Fellows with Clarke & Fellows in Farmingdale. NEW YORK CITY CENTER: Faces "Riley" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against New York City Center, Inc. The case is captioned Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. New York City Center, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02948 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016). New York City Center is home to companies, including Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, as well as Manhattan Theatre Club. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Xee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: info@leelitigation.com NORMANDIN CHRYSLER: OneCommand Must Produce Documents ----------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered OneCommand to produce any unproduced documents, databases, and other electronically stored information that identify putative class members or contain contact information for those class members in the case captioned, ALAN BRINKER, Plaintiff, v. NORMANDIN'S, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-03007-EJD (HRL) (N.D Cal.). Alan Brinker (Brinker) sues Normandin's d/b/a Normandin Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram (Normandin) and OneCommand, Inc. (OneCommand) in the class action for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The putative class includes everyone in the United States "to whom: (a) Defendants made one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendant Normandin's goods or services; (c) to their cellular telephone number; (d) through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (e) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing the Complaint to trial." Brinker and OneCommand filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) 4; they dispute whether OneCommand should produce any unproduced documents, databases, and other electronically stored information that identify putative class members or contain contact information for those class members. Brinker argues: (1) OneCommand does not claim that the production of the requested discovery would be disproportionate to the needs of this case or unduly burdensome; and (2) OneCommand has raised no valid reason to withhold the relevant information Brinker requested. OneCommand responds it is appropriate to withhold the requested information because: (1) Brinker's alleged injury is not typical of the injury that may have been suffered by people who were called with a different prerecorded message, and so any information about people who were called with a different prerecorded message is irrelevant; and (2) Brinker's request for "additional call data" could have been raised "prior to the submission of" DDJR 3, which involved a similar issue, and therefore "in keeping with the Court's standing order on discovery disputes Brinker should now be precluded from further delaying his motion for class certification and from seeking to expand the scope of the class." In his Order dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/tIDA2V from Leagle.com, Judge Lloyd concluded that it was improper for OneCommand to withhold relevant and discoverable materials related to members of the proposed class based on the belief that an impending motion for class certification should eventually be denied for lack of typicality. OneCommand was to complete production of any discovery materials no later than April 14, 2016. Alan Brinker is represented by Beth E. Terrell, Esq. -- eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- Adrienne McEntee, Esq. -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Allyson Janay Ferguson, Esq. -- jferguson@terrellmarshall.com -- and Mary Bondy Reiten, Esq. -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Michael Francis Ram, Esq. -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP Normandin's is represented by Andrew Stearns, Esq. - astrearns@boglawyers.com -- BUSTAMANTE & GAGLIASSO Onecommand, Inc. is represented by Sean P. Flynn, Esq. - sflynn@gordonrees.com -- and Daniel Scott Kubasak, Esq. - dkubasak@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES & Steven Charles Coffaro, Esq. -- steve.coffaro@knklaw.com -- KEATING MUETHING AND KLEKAMP PLL OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: To Defend EveryWare Global Investors' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that it intends to vigorously defend against a class action lawsuit filed against it by investors of EveryWare Global, Inc. On May 15, 2015, plaintiffs IBEW Local No. 58 Annuity Fund and Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of IBEW Local No. 58, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") relating to EveryWare Global, Inc. ("EveryWare") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The CAC names as defendants certain current and former officers and directors of EveryWare, Monomoy Capital Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates, as well as Oppenheimer, CJS Securities, Inc., Telsey Advisory Group, LLC, Imperial Capital, LLC and BTIG, LLC (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants"), Plaintiffs allege that, among other things, the Registration Statement issued in connection with a secondary offering of EveryWare's stock on or about September 16, 2013 contained misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. In the secondary offering, the Underwriter Defendants sold 1,750,000 shares of EveryWare stock to the public at a price of $11.50 per share. The CAC alleges claims against the Underwriter Defendants for violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs purport to bring their action on behalf of a class comprising all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired EveryWare securities between May 21, 2013 and May 16, 2014. The CAC seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 14, 2015, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC. The Underwriter Defendants, including Oppenheimer, believe they have meritorious defenses to the CAC, and Oppenheimer intends to vigorously defend the matter. PACIFIC CAPITAL: MRI's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MRI SOFTWARE, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:15 CV 1268 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Donald C. Nugent denied the MRI Software LLC's motion to dismiss Pacific Capital Management Inc.'s counterclaim. A class action suit was brought by MRI alleging breach of contract against Pacific Capital for failure to pay in accordance with the contract terms between the parties. Pacific Capital filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract and negligent/false misrepresentation against MRI. MRI sought to have Pacific Capital's counterclaims dismissed, claiming that those actions are barred by the parole evidence rule, the economic loss doctrine, and by the release that was made part of the contract between the parties. Pacific Capital argued that its counterclaims are actionable under the terms of the contract and under the principle of fraud in the inducement, which creates an exception to the parole evidence rule and the economic loss doctrine. Judge Nugent held that at this stage of the litigation, and based on the information currently before it, the court cannot determine as a matter of law that the written contract is unambiguous with regard to the types of reports it was to include, nor that Pacific Capital could not prove any of the alleged breaches of contract without resort to inadmissible parole evidence. Judge Nugent also found that Pacific Capital has sufficiently alleged a breach of contract that does not rely on the warranty provisions of the contract, and that whether that claim has any validity is a question to be determined at a later stage of the proceedings. Judge Nugent also pointed out that Ohio courts and many courts in the district have held that the economic loss doctrine does not prevent a party from raising a claim for fraud in the inducement or negligent misrepresentation when the alleged misrepresentation was intended to induce a party into entering into a contract. Lastly, the judge stated that fraud in the inducement and/or negligent misrepresentation with the intent to induce someone into entering into a contract is actionable and can be supported by extrinsic evidence so long as the alleged representations relied upon do not directly contradict the terms of the written contract, and all of the other elements of the claim are met. A full-text copy of Judge Nugent's April 11, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/SZ6mvkfrom Leagle.com. MRI Software, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander E. Gertsburg -- ag@gertsburglaw.com -- Gertsburg Law Firm, Henry G. Grendell -- hg@gertsburglaw.com -- Gertsburg Law Firm & Michael A. Callam -- mc@gertsburglaw.com -- Gertsburg Law Firm. Pacific Capital Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Dorman -- adorman@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger & Brian P. Nally -- bnally@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger. PANERA LLC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC. The case is captioned Andres Gomez and Juan Carlos Gil, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Panera, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21421- FAM (S.D. Fla., April 21, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Federico A. Moreno. Panera owns and franchises bakery-cafes in the United States. Its bakery-cafes primarily offers baked goods, dough items, and custom roasted coffees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431 1333 Facsimile: (786) 513 7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com PAPA MURPHY'S: Still Defending "Lennartson" Class Suit in Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2015, that the Company is currently named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 8, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. "The lawsuit alleges we failed to comply with the requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when we sent SMS text messages to consumers," the Company said. "The plaintiff in the lawsuit asks that the court certify the putative class and that statutory damages under the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and each class member. We believe the plaintiff's interpretation of the applicable law is incorrect and we will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in the lawsuit, but provide no assurance that we will be successful. An adverse judgment or settlement related to this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows." Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. is a franchisor and operator of the largest Take 'N' Bake pizza chain in the United States. We were founded in 1981 and have grown our footprint to a total of 1,536 system-wide stores as of December 28, 2015. PATRIARCH PARTNERS: "Eisenstadt" Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- Warren Eisenstadt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patriarch Partners LLC and XYZ Entities 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01009, was transferred from the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02831-UA to the proceeding. Patriarch Partners is a private equity firm specializing in acquisition, buyouts, and turnaround investment in distressed American companies and brands. The firm makes control investments in its investee companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky LLP Michael B. Ershowsky 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 Facsimile: (866) 367 6510 E-mail: ckupka@zlk.com ek@zlk.com mershowsky@zlk.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Mary McKenna PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3130 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: kmckenna@proskauer.com PINGTAN MARINE: Still Defends Against "Fila" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, Paul Fila, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo, Roy Yu, Jin Shi, and Xuesong Song. On January 14, 2015, Paul Fila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors, entitled Fila v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. et al, No. 15 Civ. 267 (AJN). On July 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that our public securities filings in 2013 and 2014 contained materially false and misleading statements that the Company received 100% of the annual net income and net profit from Fujian Provincial County Ocean Fishing Group, Ltd. when it allegedly did not. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company said, "On September 11, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the amended complaint fails to state a claim against the defendants. Plaintiffs' opposition to our motion to dismiss was filed on November 10, 2015, and our reply in support of our motion to dismiss was filed on December 10, 2015. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, given the unpredictability of litigation, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit." Pingtan Marine is a marine enterprises group primarily engaging in ocean fishing through our wholly-owned PRC operating subsidiary and VIE, Fujian Provincial Pingtan County Ocean Fishing Group Co., Ltd., or Pingtan Fishing. PIZZA THE PIE: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Thomas Phillips III, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Pizza The Pie, LLC and Becca Boo Pies, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00075-WCO (N.D. Ga., April 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. Instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants allegedly use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. Pizza the Pie, LLC and Becca Boo Pies, LLC own and operate approximately 40 Domino's Pizza franchise stores in Georgia and South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ralph Jordan, Esq. 345 Eastcote Dr. Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 449 4861 E-mail:ralph.a.jordan@gmail.com - and - Jack McInnes, Esq. PAUL MCINNES LLP 600 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984 8100 Facsimile: (816) 984 8101 E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com PLANT ENGINEERING: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Ortega, individually and for others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Plant Engineering Services (PES), LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00106 (S.D. Tex., April 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, PES failed to pay certain hourly employees overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, PES paid these workers "straight-time" for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. Although it appears to have fixed the problem by reclassifying the workers and starting to pay them overtime, it allegedly didn't pay the workers for overtime worked in the past. Plant Engineering provides multi-disciplined engineering and project management services including conceptual engineering, front-end engineering, detailed engineering, and design, project management controls and estimating, with procurement, construction, turnaround, commissioning, and start-up support services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Facsimile: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls RZR 900 & 1000Off-Highway Vehicles -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 133,000 Polaris Model Year 2013-2016 RZR 900 and RZR 1000 recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs). CPSC and Polaris warn consumers to stop using these recreational vehicles immediately and contact their Polaris dealer for a free repair. Polaris has agreed to voluntarily suspend sale of all recalled vehicles until they are repaired. Polaris has received more than 160 reports of fires with the recalled RZR ROVs, resulting in one death of a 15 year old passenger from a rollover that resulted in a fire and 19 reports of injuries, including first, second and third degree burns. Visit www.polaris.com to determine if your RZR ROVs VIN number is included in this recall. 2013/2014 RZR XP 900 3NSJT9EAXEF364144 - 3NSJT9EA4EF385345 4XAJT87A0DP456738 - 4XAJT87A8EF366714 2014/2015/2016 RZR XP 1000 additional VIN numbers included. Visit Polaris.com. 3NSVDE992FF361215 - 3NSVDE998GF784060 4XAST1EA0EB165962 - 4XAVFE992GB344924 2015/2016 RZR 900 additional VIN numbers included. Visit Polaris.com. 3NSVAE871FF366883 - 3NSVAE874GH861374 4XAVAA878FB926614 - 4XAVAE873GB673176 2015/2016 RZR S 900 additional VIN numbers included. Visit Polaris.com. 3NSVBE870FF361395 - 3NSVBA876GH860331 4XAVBE879FP340592 - 4XAVBE876GB673749 2016 RZR S 1000 additional VIN numbers included. Visit Polaris.com 3NSVBE994GH102740 - 3NSVBE99XGH108171 4XAVBE995GP340655 - 4XAVBE997GB673744 The VIN is normally located on the driver's side rear frame rail, above the PVT cover. Check your Owner's Manual if you have any difficulty locating the VIN. VINs are not sequential and not all VINs in the ranges above are included in this recall. To determine if a specific ROV is included in this recall visit www.Polaris.com and click on "Off-Road Safety Recalls" under the "Rider Community" heading on the main page of the Polaris website. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/sBL3c8 The ROVs were sold at Polaris dealers nationwide from July 2012 through April 2016 for between $16,000 and $26,000. The ROVs were manufactured in the United States and Mexico and imported and distributed by Polaris. Due to the serious risk of injury, owners and riders should stop using these recalled vehicles immediately. Repairs will start April 22, 2016. To schedule a free repair, consumers should call their local Polaris dealer. Contact Polaris at 800-POLARIS or 800-765-2747 from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Saturday and Sunday or online at www.polaris.com and click on "Off-Road Safety Recalls" on the main page of the Polaris website. ROKA BIOSCIENCE: In Talks to Settle Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------- Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is in settlement discussions and currently estimate a potential settlement amount of approximately $3.3 million. A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17 through November 6, 2014. The original complaint asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and contended that the IPO Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and uncertainties about the Company's sales." The alleged misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on November 6, 2014. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the court appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June 23, 2015. The amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration Statement during an extended putative class period, running from July 17, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The Company said, "The amended complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false or misleading in that it failed to disclose that our customers purportedly were experiencing false positives and other usage issues with our Listeria assays apparently arising from the customers' employees' inability to follow tour Listeria assay workflow. The amended complaint alleges that the full extent of the purported misstatements and omissions was not revealed until March 26, 2015. Defendants filed a motion on August 25, 2015 to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on October 9, 2015. The parties agreed to attempt to resolve the case through mediation, and that process is continuing." "We are currently in settlement discussions and currently estimate a potential settlement amount of approximately $3.3 million. "We believe that the claims in the securities class action are without merit, and, if the case cannot be settled through the mediation, intend to defend the litigation vigorously and we expect to incur costs associated with defending the securities class action. In addition, we have various insurance policies related to the risk associated with our business, including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However, there is no assurance that we would be successful in our defense of the securities class action if the case cannot be settled, and there is no assurance that our insurance coverage would be sufficient or that our insurance carriers would cover all claims or litigation costs." Roka Bioscience, Inc. is a molecular diagnostics company initially focused on providing advanced testing solutions for the detection of foodborne pathogens. ROLLERBLADE USA: Recalls Rollerblade Inline Skating Helmets ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Rollerblade USA, of West Lebanon, N.H., announced a voluntary recall of about 500 Rollerblade inline skating helmets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The helmet's plastic shell can crack where the straps attach, causing the helmet to shift and move on the wearer's head. This can result in a head injury hazard to the user in the event of a fall. This recall involves black Rollerblade brand Maxxum helmets. "Rollerblade" is printed on the side of the helmet, a white inline skate logo is printed on the back of the helmet and a label on the inside of the helmet contains the model number "YJ-219" and production date of October 2014 or earlier. The SKU number 06520210100 is printed on the helmet's box. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/gZinsp The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Inline Warehouse, Paragon Athletic Goods, Summit Sports and other sporting goods stores and Rollerblade helmet dealers nationwide and online at www.amazon.com, www.inlineskates.com, www.inlinewarehouse.com and www.rollerblade.com from November 2014 through January 2016. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and contact the firm for instructions on receiving a full refund. ROSICKI ROSICKI: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. The case is captioned Aron Felberbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-01950 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016). Rosicki Rosicki is a mortgage banking law firm based in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com S CARTER ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Suit Over "Life of Pablo" ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Kanye West tricked 2 million people into signing up for Jay- Z's struggling music-streaming service, Tidal, by falsely claiming that Kanye's album "The Life of Pablo" would be released exclusively on Tidal, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. Lead plaintiff Justin Baker-Rhett sued West and Jay-Z's company, S. Carter Enterprises, on April 18. He claims West and Tidal used false advertising to coax him and 2 million others into handing over their private information and credit card numbers to the streaming service. Jay-Z acquired the Swedish company Aspiro, which owns Tidal, for $56 million in March 2015 with plans to launch the first artist- owned streaming service to compete with other music streaming giants such as Spotify and Pandora. In February 2015, Jay-Z held a secret meeting with superstars -- including Beyonce, Madonna, Rihanna, Jack White, Usher and Kanye West -- offering them 3 percent stakes in his company in exchange for their creating exclusive content for the service, according to news reports cited in the complaint. At the time Jay-Z was acquiring the streaming service, Aspiro's board of directors acknowledged the company lacked the money to survive beyond 12 months, according to a February 2015 board report. By early 2016, Tidal was "teetering on the brink of collapse," and West announced on Twitter that had $53 million in personal debt. With financial woes abounding, West tweeted to his 22 million followers in February that his new album, "The Life of Pablo," one of the most anticipated of 2016, would be released exclusively on Tidal. "My album will never never never be on Apple. And it will never be for sale . . . You can only get it on Tidal," West wrote in a tweet on Feb. 15. That announcement, and similar tweets from Tidal, helped the streaming triple its subscriber base from 1 million to 3 million users in just over a month, according to the lawsuit. Each new subscriber, including those who signed up for a free trial membership, had to provide a credit card number, which would be charged at the end of the trial period. "Consumers were uniformly tricked into handing over their private data and credit card information by a singular mistruth," the 26- page complaint states. "The Life of Pablo" was streamed 250 million times in the first 10 days after it was released on Feb. 14, Tidal told The New York Times in March. But after about six weeks, West reneged on his promise and began selling the album on his personal website and making it available to Tidal's biggest competitors, including Apple Music and Spotify. "In reality, neither Mr. West nor SCE ever intended 'The Life of Pablo' to run exclusively on the Tidal platform," the complaint states. "To the contrary, they -- knowing that Tidal was in trouble but not wanting to invest their own money to save the company -- chose to fraudulently induce millions of American consumers into paying for Tidal's rescue." Tidal not only benefited from users' subscription fees but from their personal data, including user habits, demographics and browsing history, the lawsuit claims. "By increasing their user base multiple times over, Tidal is able to create valuable usage information to aid them in better monetizing their site as well sharing with or selling that information to third parties (such as record labels, artists on its platform, and other media companies)," the complaint states. Baker-Rhett says he would not have signed up for Tidal or paid the $9.99 subscription fee had he known "The Life of Pablo" would be made available elsewhere. He seeks class certification, damages for false advertising, unfair competition, fraud and unjust enrichment, restitution, and an order directing Tidal to delete all class members' personal data, cancel any outstanding fees and to stop using their personal information to make money. He is represented by Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- with Edelson PC in San Francisco. S. Carter Enterprises and Tidal's parent company, Aspiro, did not immediately return phone calls and emails seeking comment April 18. Neither Kanye West nor a representative for him could be reached for comment. SANTA FE NATURAL: "Cuebas" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695 -------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Cuebas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., and the Reynolds American, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00270, was transferred from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, to US District Court for the District of New Mexico. The District of New Mexico assigned 1:16- cv-00320-JB-LF to the proceeding. Santa Fe Natural is an American tobacco manufacturer based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, known for its production of the premier Natural American Spirit cigarette brand. The Cuebas case is consolidated with MDL 2695 in re: Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 11, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising out of the allegation that defendants label and advertise Natural American Spirit cigarettes as "natural" and "100% additive free" in a false and misleading manner in violation of state consumer protection and false advertising laws. Additionally, all actions stem from an FDA warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company on August 27, 2015, concerning the allegedly unauthorized use of "natural" and "additive free" on Natural American Spirits cigarette labeling. In its April 1, 2016, order, the MDL persuaded that the District of New Mexico is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Defendant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has its headquarters in this district, and it represents that key witnesses reside there, including employees and decision makers tasked with the development and execution of product labeling, marketing and advertising. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. James O. Browning. The lead case is 1:16-md-02695-JB-LF. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Louis Haberman, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES 1212 SE 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 320 9507 E-mail: JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com SANTA FE NATURAL: "Waldo" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695 ------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Waldo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., and Reynolds American Inc., the Defendant, Case no. 6:16-cv- 00427, was transferred from the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the US District Court for the District of New Mexico (Albuquerque). The New Mexico District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00324-JB-LF to the proceeding. The Waldo case is consolidated with MDL 2695 in re: Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 11, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising out of the allegation that defendants label and advertise Natural American Spirit cigarettes as "natural" and "100% additive free" in a false and misleading manner in violation of state consumer protection and false advertising laws. Additionally, all actions stem from an FDA warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company on August 27, 2015, concerning the allegedly unauthorized use of "natural" and "additive free" on Natural American Spirits cigarette labeling. In its April 1, 2016, order, the MDL persuaded that the District of New Mexico is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Defendant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has its headquarters in this district, and it represents that key witnesses reside there, including employees and decision makers tasked with the development and execution of product labeling, marketing and advertising. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. James O. Browning. The lead case is 1:16-md-02695-JB-LF. Santa Fe Natural is an American tobacco manufacturer based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, known for its production of the premier Natural American Spirit cigarette brand. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq. Keith R. Mitnik, Esq. Marisa Kendra Glassman, Esq. Scott Wm. Weinstein, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, PA 201 N Franklin St Fl 7 Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813) 223 5505 Facsimile: (813) 223 5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com kmitnik@forthepeople.com mglassman@forthepeople.com sweinstein@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul Courtney Huck, Jr., Esq. JONES DAY 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 714 9742 Facsimile: (305) 714 9799 E-mail: paulhuck@jonesday.com - and - Troy A. Fuhrman, Esq. HILL WARD HENDERSON, PA 101 E Kennedy Blvd-Ste 3700 PO Box 2231 Tampa, FL 33602-5195 Telephone: (813) 221 3900 Facsimile: (813) 221 2900 E-mail: troy.fuhrman@hwhlaw.com SANTA FE NATURAL: "Okstad" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695 --------------------------------------------------------- Steve Okstad, Brooke Balocca, Elijah Bent, Charlene Blevins, Sam Bowman, Matokie Brim, Terry Cliver, Christos Christolow, George Coon, Gary Cruse, Margie Harris, Charles Honse, Clinton Horton, Collin Jass, Cristopher Jensen, Shereen Keith, Kelly Keiser, Asher King, Marilyn Komarinski, Jodi Kumpula, Tom Kurtz, Richard Kusick, Mike Lair, Tracy Lee, Kathleen Lelli, Robert Litwin, Linda MacDonald-Lewis, Rudolph Miller, Richard Morelock, Deborah Orrtim Paulson, Richard Peavy, Concetta Schultz, Judy Sell, Harrison Thomas, Dani Weir, Tom Weir, Kyle Wiebe, and Vicki Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., and Reynolds American Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00084, was transferred from the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida Middle, to the US District Court for the District of New Mexico (Albuquerque). The New Mexico District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00323-JB-LF to the proceeding. The Okstad case is consolidated with MDL 2695 in re: Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 11, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising out of the allegation that defendants label and advertise Natural American Spirit cigarettes as "natural" and "100% additive free" in a false and misleading manner in violation of state consumer protection and false advertising laws. Additionally, all actions stem from an FDA warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company on August 27, 2015, concerning the allegedly unauthorized use of "natural" and "additive free" on Natural American Spirits cigarette labeling. In its April 1, 2016, order, the MDL persuaded that the District of New Mexico is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Defendant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has its headquarters in this district, and it represents that key witnesses reside there, including employees and decision makers tasked with the development and execution of product labeling, marketing and advertising. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. James O. Browning. The lead case is 1:16-md-02695-JB-LF. Santa Fe Natural is an American tobacco manufacturer based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, known for its production of the premier Natural American Spirit cigarette brand. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Louis Haberman, Esq. Jonathan Gdanski, Esq. Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES 1212 SE 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 320 9507 E-mail: JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com scott@schlesingerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David M. Monde, Esq. Paul Courtney Huck, Jr., Esq. Michael Fraser Stoer, Esq. JONES DAY 1420 Peachtree Street, Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 521 3939 Facsimile: (404) 521 8330 E-mail: dmmonde@jonesday.com paulhuck@jonesday.com mstoer@jonesday.com SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Dattoma" Suit in N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Seagate Technology, LLC. The case is captioned Nicholas Dattoma, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Seagate Technology, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-NC (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2016). The Assigned Magistrate Judge is Nathanael M. Cousins. Seagate is an American data storage company. It was incorporated in 1978 as Shugart Technology. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298 3281 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com - and - Eric A. Grover, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543 1305 Facsimile: (415) 543 7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com SEPHORA USA: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Provencio" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Provencio and all other persons similarly situated v. Sephora USA, Inc., Case No. 16CV294112 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid regular wages, compensation for missed meal periods, reporting time pay, reimbursable business expenses, illegal paycheck deductions, related penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs pursuant to California Labor Code. Sephora USA, Inc. is a luxury products provider with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Allen, Esq. VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C. 525 W Remington Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Telephone: (408) 505-7892 SIENTRA INC: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have filed their consolidated amended complaint. The Company said, "On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names the Company and certain of our officers as defendants and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning our business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees." "On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to approve their selection on lead counsel. On December 10, 2015, the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of lead counsel. On February 19, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint." Sientra Inc. is a medical aesthetics company. SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Want Suit Remanded to Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in three stockholder class action lawsuits in California fought the Defendants' bid to remove the case to federal court. The Company said, "On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo. The lawsuits name the Company, certain of our officers and directors, and the underwriters associated with our follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements in our offering documents associated with the follow-on offering concerning our business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees." "On December 4, 2015, defendants removed all three lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior Court, or the Motions to Remand. "On January 19, 2016, defendants filed their opposition to the Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the Motions to Remand on January 26, 2016." Sientra Inc. is a medical aesthetics company. SOUVNEAR INC: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with SouvNear Inc., of Trevose, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 650 Women's scarves. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The scarves do not meet the federal flammability standard for clothing textiles, posing a burn risk. This recall involves 51 different styles of women's 100 percent silk scarves. The scarves are between 72 inches long by 31 inches wide. "100% Pure Silk" and "Made in India" are printed on the sewn-in tags. The scarves come in standard and infinity styles and come in various colors and patterns, including floral, leopard and paisley. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/nGp3fa The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at Averroes International stores and online at amazon.com and souvnear.com from October 2014 through March 2016 for between $8 and $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled scarves and return them to SouvNear for a full refund. Consumers who purchased the scarves online will be contacted directly. SPARK ENERGY: Dismissal, Arbitration Bids in "Amaya" Case Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ARTURO AMAYA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPARK ENERGY GAS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02326-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White denied the motion filed by the defendant Spark Energy Gas, LLC to dismiss all claims in the first amended complaint and to compel arbitration of the claims of plaintiff Barbara Gehrke. Judge White granted the plaintiffs' administrative motion to continue the schedule for the briefing and hearing of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants are retail energy suppliers that provide retail utilities services including natural gas and electricity. The plaintiffs are former customers of the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engage in fraudulent and deceptive bait and switch sales practices. The defendants sought to compel arbitration of the claims of the plaintiff Barbara Gehrke. Judge White, however, concluded that the issue of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate was ever concluded between the defendants and Gehrke cannot be resolved on the present record, and thus denied the motion without prejudice. The defendants also moved to dismiss each of the plaintiffs' claims in the first amended complaint, relying on three legal theories. Judge White, however, denied the defendants' motion based on all three arguments. Because of the need for supplemental briefing on the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and the time for ruling on that motion, Judge White found that the plaintiffs have shown good cause for continuing the class certification hearing. Additionally, Judge White agreed with the plaintiffs that the question of whether to amend the complaint to substitute proposed plaintiff Gabino Ortiz for deceased plaintiff Margaret Smith should be resolved prior to briefing on class certification. Accordingly, Judge White granted the plaintiffs' administrative motion. A full-text copy of Judge White's April 11, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/DYQAeyfrom Leagle.com. Arturo Amaya, Barbara Gehrke, Gabino Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, Beatrice Oluwayemisi Yakubu -- byakubu@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca -- charles@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Sara Dawn Avila, Milstein Adelman, LLP, Steven Richard Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP, Taylor Asen -- tasen@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice & Gillian Leigh Wade, Milstein Adelman, LLP. Spark Energy Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua Carter Thomas -- jthomas@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Roland Matthias -- mmatthias@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Michelle D. Pector -- mpector@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice & Paul G. Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice. Spark Energy Gas, L.P., Defendant, represented by Michael Roland Matthias, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Joshua Carter Thomas, Baker Hostetler LLP & Michelle D. Pector, Baker Hostetler, LLP. SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and SFM, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00958-CAB-DHB (S.D. Cal. April 20, 2016), is brought on behalf of all the Defendants' current and former employees whose most sensitive data, including over 21,000 Form W- 2's and their related information, was compiled and negligently released by the Defendants in response to a "phishing scam" and is now in the possession of unknown third parties who are believed to be using the data for illegal purposes. The Defendants operate 224 Sprouts Farmers 22 Markets in thirteen states, including California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. Samantha A. Smith, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92604 Telephone: (949) 724-9200 Facsimile: (949) 724-9255 E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com samantha@cooper-firm.com - and - Roger R. Carter, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 629-2565 Facsimile: (949) 629-2501 E-mail: roger@cartelawfirm.com - and - Marc H. Phelps, Esq. PHELPS LAW GROUP 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 629-2533 Facsimile: (949) 629-2501 E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com STAPLES THE OFFICE: Recalls Office Chairs Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Staples the Office Superstore LLC, of Framingham, Mass., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,000 "Back in Motion" Office Chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chair can tip over when leaning back, posing a fall hazard. This recall involves Staples and Quill brand "Back in Motion" office chairs. The black, bonded leather chair has a tilt function and a base with wheels. The chairs have SKU # 203439 and item number SBG 24422 printed on the white label on the underside of the seat cushion. A second label, also located on the underside of the seat cushion, states "Reg. No. CA31704 (CN)" and "Made by LF Products PTE LTD." No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/83rrm3 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Staples stores nationwide and online at Staples.com and Quill.com from January 2014 through January 2016 for about $215. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled office chair and contact Staples for a free replacement base. SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Jewett" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dominique Jewett, and all others similarly situated v. Superior Healthplan, Inc. & Centene Company of Texas, L.P, Case No. 3:16- cv-01068-L (N.D. Tex. April 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants administer and operate government-sponsored health insurance plans in the state of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 North Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com forester@l-b-law.com - and - Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 North Central Expy, Ste 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 706-0834 Facsimile: (469) 339-0204 E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz TACO BELL: Court Awards $291,987 as Prejudgment Interest -------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California awarded prejudgment interest of $291,987.70 in favor of Plaintiffs in the case captioned, IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case No. 1:07- CV-01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs filed the action over eight and one half years ago. Following a twelve day jury trial, on March 9, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs for the Underpaid Meal Premium Class claim and in favor of Defendants on the claims of the Rest Period Class and Late Meal Period Class. The jury awarded Plaintiffs' damages of $495,913.66 for unpaid meal premiums. In the motion, Plaintiffs contend that the award of the jury was for unpaid wages and they are entitled to statutory prejudgment interest at the California rate of ten percent. Plaintiffs seek prejudgment interest under California Civil Code section 3289. Section 3289 provides for interest at ten percent per annum after a breach of contract. Defendants argue that the amount awarded was uncertain until the jury returned its award so Plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest. Further, Defendants argue that the amount awarded by the jury is not wages, but a penalty and therefore no prejudgment interest is due. In his Order dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/CyxXTv from Leagle.com, Judge Boone found no reason to deviate from the general rule that an award of interest should be simple, rather than compound. The Court award prejudgment interest to the Underpaid Meal Premium Class from November 12, 2007 to the date that judgment at 7 percent per annum. Prejudgment interest is awarded in the action in the amount of $291,987.70. Sandrika Medlock, et al. are represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Esq. -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jennifer Renee Bagosy, Esq. -- Jennifer.Bagosy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq. -- Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez, Esq. -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat, Esq. -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler, Esq. -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq. -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC, Monica Balderrama, Esq. -- MBalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC, Stuart Rowe Chandler, Esq. -- LAW OFFICE OF STUART R. CHANDLER Taco Bell Corp. is represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey, Esq. -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- and Nora K. Stiles, Esq. -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON TUFCO INC: Faces "Romano" Suit Over Home Improvement Deal Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Salvatorevatore Romano v. Tufco Inc. and Carmine Tufano, Case No. 605449/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., April 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to perform all of the work required by the home improvement contract and change orders. The Defendants, with a principal place of business at 24 Harbor Avenue, Islip, New York 11751, operate a construction company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl Silverberg, Esq. KARL SILVERBERG, P.C. 320 Carleton Ave., Ste. 6400 Central Islip, NY 11722 Telephone: (631) 778-6077 Facsimile: (631) 778-6078 TULANE UNIVERSITY: "England" Suit Seeks Benefits ------------------------------------------------ Christopher England, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund d/b/a Tulane University, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03184 (E.D. La., April 14, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages with liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, recovery of paid time off, vacation, sick time and paid holidays denied, benefits denied to Plaintiff and/or damages caused by denial of same, all costs incurred and reasonable attorney's fees and all relief requested to be awarded under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tulane Educational Fund, operates as Tulane University, in New Orleans, Louisiana, where Plaintiff worked as a tutor. Tulane allegedly denied Plaintiff benefits paid to other full-time employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura L. Catlett, Esq. LAURA L. CATLETT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1414 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504)521-7958 Fax: (866)587-6697 Email: LauraLCatlettLaw@gmail.com UNITED GUARANTY: Faces "Rodan" Suit in Western Dist. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company. The case is captioned Lawrence Rodan, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00229-DJH (W.D. Ky., April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. David J. Hale. United Guaranty provides mortgage guaranty insurance and reinsurance solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary L. Taylor, Esq. 9900 Corporate Campus Drive, Suite 3000 Louisville, KY 40223 Telephone: (502) 822 2500 Facsimile: (502) 631-9680 E-mail: ztaylor@taylorlawcenter.com VAM USA: "Guidry" Suit Seeks Compensation & OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Glen Guidry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VAM USA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01064 (S.D. Tex., April 21, 2016), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant and was paid a salary plus job bonuses but did not receive overtime. VAM allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. VAM manufactures and markets connection solutions for the oil and gas industry worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com lbraddy@phippsandersondeacon.com VECO AUTO: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Antonio Fernandez Mendoza, Ramon Fernando Aguero, Vianyolet E. Mendoza and similarly, situated individuals v. Veco Auto Body Parts, Inc., Alberto Segovia, Sr. and Alberto Segovia, Jr., Case No. 1:16-cv-21413-JA (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an auto body parts company in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Andrew Costales GARY A. COSTALES, P.A. 1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1230 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-9510 Facsimile: (305) 375-9511 E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com VECTOR GROUP: $26.9MM Product Liability Legal Expenses in 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, Liggett incurred tobacco product liability legal expenses and costs totaling $26,987,000, $9,944,000 and $9,321,000, respectively. The 2013 costs exclude a charge of $86,213,000 associated with the Engle progeny settlement. Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from cigarettes. The cases have generally fallen into the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs ("Individual Actions"); (ii) lawsuits by individuals requesting the benefit of the Engle ruling ("Engle progeny cases"); (iii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring, as well as cases alleging that use of the terms "lights" and/or "ultra lights" constitutes a deceptive and unfair trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal law, purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and (iv) health care cost recovery actions brought by various foreign and domestic governmental plaintiffs and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery Actions"). With the commencement of new cases, the defense costs and the risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation increase. The future financial impact of the risks and expenses of litigation are not quantifiable. VECTOR GROUP: 171 Engle Progeny Cases Settled for $3.6-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015, Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on an individual basis, settled 171 Engle progeny cases for approximately $3,612,000 in the aggregate. Three of those settlements occurred in the fourth quarter of 2015. Judgments have been entered against Liggett and other industry defendants in Engle progeny cases. A number of the judgments have been affirmed on appeal and satisfied by the defendants. As of December 31, 2015, 24 Engle progeny cases where Liggett was a defendant at trial resulted in verdicts. Fifteen verdicts were returned in favor of the plaintiffs (although in two of these cases (Irimi and Cohen) the court granted defendants' motion for a new trial and nine in favor of Liggett. In four of the cases, punitive damages were awarded against Liggett. In certain cases, the judgments were entered jointly and severally with other defendants and Liggett may face the risk that one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail to participate in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay their proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. As a result, Liggett under certain circumstances may have to pay more than its proportionate share of any bonding or judgment related amounts. Several of the judgments remain on appeal. Except as discussed regarding the cases where an adverse verdict was entered against Liggett and that remain on appeal, management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss from the remaining Engle progeny cases as there are currently multiple defendants in each case and, in most cases, discovery has not occurred or is limited. As a result, the Company lacks information about whether plaintiffs are in fact Engle class members (non- class members' claims are generally time-barred), the relevant smoking history, the nature of the alleged injury and the availability of various defenses, among other things. Further, plaintiffs typically do not specify their demand for damages. Although Liggett has generally been successful in managing litigation, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant challenges remain, including with respect to the remaining Engle progeny cases. There can be no assurances that Liggett's past litigation experience will be representative of future results. Judgments have been entered against Liggett in the past, in Individual Actions and Engle progeny cases, and several of those judgments were affirmed on appeal and satisfied by Liggett. It is possible that the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any of the remaining smoking-related litigation. Liggett believes, and has been so advised by counsel, that it has valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended, however, Liggett has entered into settlement discussions in individual cases or groups of cases, where Liggett has determined it was in its best interest to do so, and it may continue to do so in the future, including the remaining Engle progeny cases. In October 2013, Liggett announced a settlement of the claims of over 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs. As of December 31, 2015, Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on an individual basis, settled 171 Engle progeny cases for approximately $3,612,000 in the aggregate. Three of those settlements occurred in the fourth quarter of 2015. VECTOR GROUP: 260 Claims Outstanding Amid Engle Progeny Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that approximately 260 claims remain outstanding notwithstanding the Engle Progeny Settlement. In May 1994, Engle was filed against Liggett and others in Miami- Dade County, Florida. The class consisted of all Florida residents who, by November 21, 1996, "have suffered, presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their addiction to cigarette smoking." In July 1999, after the conclusion of Phase I of the trial, the jury returned a verdict against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers on certain issues determined by the trial court to be "common" to the causes of action of the plaintiff class. The jury made several findings adverse to the defendants including that defendants' conduct "rose to a level that would permit a potential award or entitlement to punitive damages." Phase II of the trial was a causation and damages trial for three of the class plaintiffs and a punitive damages trial on a class-wide basis before the same jury that returned the verdict in Phase I. In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of $12,704,000 to the three class plaintiffs, to be reduced in proportion to the respective plaintiff's fault. In July 2000, the jury awarded approximately $145,000,000,000 in punitive damages, including $790,000 against Liggett. In May 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and remanded the case with instructions to decertify the class. The judgment in favor of one of the three class plaintiffs, in the amount of $5,831,000, was overturned as time barred and the court found that Liggett was not liable to the other two class plaintiffs. In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision vacating the punitive damages award and held that the class should be decertified prospectively, but determined that the following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in Engle progeny cases: (i) that smoking causes lung cancer, among other diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants concealed material information knowing that the information was false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their detriment; (vi) that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (vii) that defendants were negligent. The Florida Supreme Court decision also allowed former class members to proceed to trial on individual liability issues (using the above findings) and compensatory and punitive damage issues, provided they filed their individual lawsuits by January 2008. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations made by defendants. In October 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition for writ of certiorari. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling in Engle, which decertified the class on a prospective basis, and affirmed the appellate court's reversal of the punitive damages award, former class members had until January 2008 in which to file individual lawsuits. As a result, Liggett and the Company, and other cigarette manufacturers, were sued in thousands of Engle progeny cases in both federal and state courts in Florida. Although the Company was not named as a defendant in the Engle case, it was named as a defendant in substantially all of the Engle progeny cases where Liggett was named as a defendant. In October 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their counsel. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed to pay a total of approximately $110,000,000, with approximately $61,000,600 paid in a lump sum and the balance to be paid in installments over 14 years, starting in February 2015. In exchange, the claims of over 4,900 plaintiffs were dismissed with prejudice against the Company and Liggett. Due to the settlement, in 2013 the Company recorded a charge of $86,213,000, of which $25,213,000 is related to certain payments discounted to their present value using an 11% annual discount rate. The Company recorded an additional charge of $643,000 in the first quarter of 2015 for additional cases joining the settlement and the restructuring of certain payments related to several previously settled cases. The installment payments total approximately $48,000,000 on an undiscounted basis. The Company's future payments will be approximately $3,400,000 per annum through 2028, with a cost of living increase beginning in 2021. Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny Settlement, approximately 260 plaintiffs' claims remain outstanding. Therefore, the Company and Liggett may still be subject to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material adverse affect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Faces Class Suit in E.D. Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015, three actions were pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these actions. Liggett is aware of another action seeking class certification recently filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Liggett has not been served with that complaint. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of limitations and federal preemption. VECTOR GROUP: Trial in W.Va. Tobacco Case Set for Jan. 2017 ----------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a trial court has set the first date for the consolidated trials for January 9, 2017. Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues. Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969 should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial. The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs. The trial court set the first date for the consolidated trials for January 9, 2017. With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome of the first phase of the trial. Briefing is complete. If the case proceeds against Liggett, it is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in less than 25 of the remaining individual cases. VITA-MIX CORPORATION: Faces "Candelario" Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Vita-Mix Corporation. The case is captioned Lucia Candelario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. Vita-Mix Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02260-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., April 21, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Michael A. Shipp. Vita-Mix manufactures and supplies blending equipment for home and commercial use. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Clark, Esq. Clark Law Firm, PC 811 Sixteenth Avenue Belmar, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 443 0333 Facsimile: (732) 894 9647 E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com VIVUS INC: Bid to Dismiss "Jasin" Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the California court has yet to rule on the company's motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit. On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud against the Company and three of its former officers and directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit. Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought damages and other relief. On June 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a demurrer to the Amended Complaint seeking its dismissal. With the demurrer pending, on July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged in their state court action. On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, the state court action. In the federal action, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014. On December 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in the federal action. On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The court ruled on that motion on June 18, 2015, dismissing the seven California claims with prejudice and dismissing the two federal claims with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 17, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 2, 2015. On September 10, 2015, plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment on their state claims. Briefing on both defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment was completed on December 15, 2015. The court heard oral argument on both motions on January 14, 2016. The court has not yet issued a ruling on either motion. The Company maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the use of the Company's financial resources to pay for the Company's self-insured retention and the policies' terms and conditions. VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company with two therapies approved by the FDA: Qsymia(R) (phentermine and topiramate extended- release) for chronic weight management and STENDRA(R) (Avanafil) for erectile dysfunction, or ED. STENDRA is also approved by the European Commission, or EC, under the trade name, SPEDRA, for the treatment of ED in the EU. VIZIO INC: "Tongarm" Suit Transferred from N.D. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ Caroline Tongarm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vizio Inc., a California Corporation and Cognitive Media Networks Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00822, was transferred from the US District Court for the Northern District of California, to the US District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District Court assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00739-JLS-KES to the proceeding. Based in Irvine, California, Vizio is an American privately held company making consumer electronics. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Tran, Esq. Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Joyce Chang, Esq. Adam John Zapala, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcom Road Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697 6000 Facsimile: (650) 697 0577 E-mail: etran@cpmlegal.com jcotchett@cpmlegal.com jchang@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. Joseph P Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP 156 South Main Street Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537 5537 Facsimile: (860) 537 4432 E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Gary F Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET AND KILPELA LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 Facsimile: (724) 656 1556 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com The Defendants are represented by: Hyongsoon Kim, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD LLP 4 Park Plaza Suite 1900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 885 1000 Facsimile: (949) 885 1001 E-mail: kimh@akingump.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Napleton Suit Consolidated With MDL 2672 ---------------------------------------------------------- Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC, doing business as: Napleton's Volkswagen of Orlando, an Illinois limited liability company; Napleton Sanford Imports, LLC, doing business as: Napleton's Volkswagen of Sanford, an Illinois limited liability company; Napleton Automotive of Urbana, LLC, doing business as: Napleton Volkswagen of Urbana, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VW Credit Inc., a Delaware corporation; Volkswagen A.G., a German corporation; Robert Bosch, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; and Robert Bosch GmbH, a German corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04071, was transferred from the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the US District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv- 02086-CRB to the proceeding. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Napleton case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E Loeser, 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 toml@hbsslaw.com VS PHARMACY: Recalls Organic Spiced Herbal Tea Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------------- VS Pharmacy(R) announced that it has voluntarily recalled select cases of Gold Emblem Abound(TM) Organic Spiced Herbal Tea following notification from the manufacturer that the product is potentially contaminated with Salmonella. An ingredient produced by the manufacturer's raw material supplier tested positive for Salmonella in another company's product. CVS Pharmacy's Gold Emblem product also contains this ingredient. The product is labeled "Gold Emblem Abound Organic Spiced Herbal Tea 1.41 oz" and was packed in 1.4 oz cartons. The recalled product has a single best by date of 18 Mar 2018 with a UPC code 0 50428 541043. No other best by dates are affected. The product was available at CVS Pharmacy stores nationwide. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Approximately 200 units of the recalled product were sold prior to this recall. The Company is not aware of any reported cases of illness to date related to this product and it has issued this voluntary recall as a matter of precaution. CVS Pharmacy has removed the affected products from its stores and the manufacturer has notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. A "do not sell" block has also been placed in the Company's store register system to prevent further sale of these recalled items. Any customer who purchased the recalled product should immediately discontinue use and return the item to CVS Pharmacy for a refund. For additional information, please contact the Company at 1-800- SHOP-CVS Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM ET. CVS Pharmacy, the retail division of CVS Health (NYSE:CVS), is America's leading retail pharmacy with over 9,600 locations. It is the first national pharmacy to end the sale of tobacco and the first pharmacy in the nation to receive the Community Pharmacy accreditation from URAC, the leading health care accreditation organization that establishes quality standards for the health care industry. CVS Pharmacy is reinventing pharmacy to help people on their path to better health by providing the most accessible and personalized expertise, both in its stores and online at CVS.com. General information about CVS Pharmacy and CVS Health is available at www.cvshealth.com. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/v6or8M WEST MARINE: Calif. Court Approves Class Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that a court has approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit. In October 2014, a putative class action was filed against West Marine in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California former hourly employee claiming violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought unspecified damages and attorney's fees, alleging the company's failure to pay overtime to hourly California store employees who earned bonus wages or commissions during pay periods in which they worked overtime, and the derivative claims of failure to provide accurate wage statements and all wages owed upon termination of employment. The Company said, "Although we continued to vigorously defend the claims underlying the lawsuit, on October 16, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle this matter on an individual and class-wide basis to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated with protracted litigation. On February 19, 2016, the court approved the settlement. Our aggregate obligation, including settlement funds, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs and settlement administration costs had no material impact on our financial statements." West Marine is a specialty retailer serving people who enjoy recreating on or around the water. WESTLEX CORP: 5th Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Remand --------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judges Carolyn D. King, Edith B. Clement and Priscilla R. Owen of the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the case captioned, FELICIA CARTER; ANGELLIA DOZIER; NEVALYN FARLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WESTLEX CORPORATION; McCALL-TL, INCORPORATED; PARK PLACE LX OF TEXAS, LIMITED; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-20561. Summary Calendar (5th Cir.). Plaintiffs-Appellants Felicia Carter, Angellia Dozier, and Nevalyn Farley (Plaintiffs) filed suit against Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., (TMS) and several dealerships (Defendants) in Texas state court on November 6, 2014. Plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, claims of products liability, fraud, and breach of implied warranty based on alleged heat damage to the dashboards and other interior components of their Lexus and Toyota vehicles. Plaintiffs filed this action individually and on behalf of a putative class of all Texas residents who own a Toyota or Lexus vehicle that suffered from the alleged heat damage. Plaintiffs alleged that the putative class consisted of more than one thousand members, and although they did not specify a particular amount in controversy, Plaintiffs alleged that the collective damages exceeded $100,000. Defendants timely removed the case on December 19, 2014, arguing in their notice of removal that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). On January 14, 2015, Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, challenging Defendants' damages calculations and arguing that the amount of potential damages was not in excess of $5 million. The district court denied the motion to remand on March 17, 2015. After Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on August 26, 2015. On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge only the district court's denial of their motion to remand arguing that Defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million threshold as required by the Class Action Fairness Act when Defendants introduced evidence of the average costs of repairing class members' vehicles and calculated a total amount in controversy of over $5 million. In the Per Curiam dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/XOIn07from Leagle.com, Judges King, Clement and Owen found that the district court committed no error in relying on the evidence and calculations of Defendants. Plaintiffs failed to introduce any evidence suggesting that Defendants' evidence presented an inaccurate picture of the amount in controversy, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the district court incorrectly interpreted Defendants' evidence or calculations. WILBUR PRODUCTS: "Tatum" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ala. -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Clyde Tatum Jr., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wilbur Products Inc., doing business as: Motiv Bowling, the Defendant, Case No. 64-CV-16- 900097 was removed from the Circuit Court of Walker County Alabama, to US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Jasper). The Northern District court assigned Case No. 6:16-cv- 00643-LSC to the proceeding. Wilbur is in the sporting and recreational goods and supplies industry in Spring Lake, Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth L Diamond, Esq. SETH L DIAMOND 3 Riverchase Office Plaza Suite 102 Birmingham, AL 35244 Telephone: (256) 778 1529 E-mail: sediamondlaw@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer M Busby, Esq. Michael R Dodson, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251 3000 Facsimile: (205) 458 5614 E-mail: gbusby@burr.com mdodson@burr.com WINDSOR WINDOW: "Clark" Suit Consolidated With MDL 2688 ------------------------------------------------------- Walter Clark and Stephanie Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Windsor Window Company, doing business as: Windsor Windows and Doors, and Woodgrain Millwork Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00721, was transferred from the US District for the Southern District of Indiana, to the US District for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee). The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv- 00479-LA to the proceeding. Windsor Windows & Doors manufactures wood, vinyl & cellular PVC windows and doors for new home construction, and home improvement projects. The Clark case is being consolidated with MDL 2688 in re: Windsor Wood Clad Window Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On April 7, 2016. These actions -- all of which are either putative nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions arising from allegations that windows in two Windsor product lines, Pinnacle and Legend Hybrid, are defective in that purported deficiencies in Windsor's design, engineering, and manufacturing practices cause the windows to leak, and the leaks eventually result in wood rot. In its December 8, 2015 order, the Panel found that centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 2:16-md-02688-LA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donn H Wray, Esq. Glenn David Bowman, Esq. KATZ & KORIN PC The Emelie Building 334 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204-1708 Telephone: (317) 464 1100 Facsimile: (317) 464 1111 E-mail: dwray@katzkorin.com gbowman@katzkorin.com WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: "Forster" Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------- Todd Forster and Maria Forster, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Woodgrain Millwork Inc., and Windsor Window Company, doing business as: Windsor Windows and Doors, the Defendants, Case No., 1:16-cv-00257, was transferred from the US District Court for the Western District of New York, to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee). The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00480-LA to the proceeding. Woodgrain manufactures moldings and turnings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J Fearon, Jr, Esq. Squitieri & Fearon LLP 32 E 57th St-12th Fl New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421 6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Yamaha Motor Corporation USA, of Cypress, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 Yamaha Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Water can get into the throttle cable and if it freezes during cold weather, the ice can prevent the throttle from returning to idle. This can cause the rider to lose control, posing crash and injury hazards. This recall involves model year 2016 YXZ1000R and YXZ1000R SE Side-by-Side utility vehicles sold in four colors: orange and black, blue and white, silver and red, and yellow and white. The model name (YXZ . . . ) and "1000" is displayed in a graphic on both the left and right side of the vehicle. The vehicle identification number (VIN) is stamped on the frame near the driver's side rear wheel. The letter G in the 10th position of the VIN number indicates that the unit was made in the 2016 model year. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/s6wUWf The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Yamaha side-by-side dealers nationwide from September 2015 to February 2016 for between $19,800 and $21,600. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled utility vehicles and contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair. Yamaha is contacting all registered owners directly. ********* 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 * * *