/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160606.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 112 Headlines ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Still Defends Georgia Suit Over Illegal Fees ALL CREATURES: Bid to Certify "Jelus" Collective Action Denied ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs in "Williams" to Appeal ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Jimenez" Scheduled for Trial in September ALLSTATE CORPORATION: No Opt Outs Received in Perez-Brown Suit ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Defending Against "Rosenberg" Case ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Non-Jury ERISA Trial to Occur in December ALLSTATE GROUP: "Perry" Sues over Breach of Contract AMEC FOSTER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Abila" Suit AMERICAN HONDA: Dobbs Seeks Certification of 3 Class & Subclasses AMERICAN HONDA: "Kogan" Warranty Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio AMERICAN WATER: Court Extends Schedules in Chemical Spill Suit AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: Bid to Certify Class in "Farrow" Suit Denied BANK OF AMERICA: "Hopkins" Sues Over Breach of Contract BIG LOTS: Pontiac Seeks Class Certification in "Willis" Suit BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 3,600 Surgical Mesh Cases Pending as of May 2 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Against "Stevens" Vaginal Mesh Suit BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Inks Confidential Settlement in "Fretter" BP EXPLORATION: "Perrault" Sues Over Oil Spill CALIFORNIA CASUALTY: "Oldenburg" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CALIX INC: MOU Reached in Delaware Class Action CASCADE MICROTECH: Class Action to Proceed in Multnomah Court CASHCALL INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Inetianbor" Suit CHEMOIL ENERGY: "Lee" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay COLLECTO INC: C. Dawes Amends Bid for Certification of Class COMCAST CORPORATION: "Wingard" Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Ga. CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS: "Ortega" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Appeal Briefing Complete COOPER-STANDARD: Fixed Body Sealing Product Prices, Suit Says CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Final OK of "Baker" Suit Class Settlement CRESCENT DIRECTIONAL: "Long" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay DARBY DENTAL: "Lewis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay DECIBELS OF OREGON: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay DIRECT ENERGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Richards" Suit DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Soto Seeks Certification of FLSA Class DS WATERS: Eddings Seeks Approval of $1-Mil. Class Settlement DST SYSTEMS: Defending "Cooper" ERISA Class Action DYNAMIC DOWNHOLE: "Rutherford" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ELECTRONIC ARTS: Cronin Appeals Ruling in "Keller" Class Suit ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Facing "Dougherty" Class Suit in E.D. Mich. EVENTGRID INC: Faces "Windebank" Suit in C.D. Cal. FANDUEL INC: "Daniels" Suit Removed to S.D. Ind. FANNIE MAE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Luna" Suit FANTECH SOFTWARE: "Amini" Sues Over Spam Texts FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Deadline for Settlement Completion Extended FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Appeal in "Ludwick" Case Remains Pending FLORIDA GARDEN: "Johnson" Suit Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages FOX ENTERTAINMENT: "Le" Suit to Recover Last Pay, Missed Breaks FRANCIS JOHN: "Kassab" Breach of Contract Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. GANNETT CO: Settlements Reached in "Casagrand" TCPA Action GENESCO INC: "Murray" Sues over Share Price Drop GOT CAPITAL: Korea Week Loses Class Certification Bid GROWELL BRANDS: Has Until June 14 to Respond to "McMillan" Suit HARRIS COUNTY: "O'Donnell" Seeks Temporary Restraining Order HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Statement HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE: "Rosenberg" Sues for Sexual Discrimination HORSEHEAD HOLDINGS: "Jani" Sues Over Share Price Drop IMS HEALTH: "Chiu" Sues Over Shady Merge Deal INNOVATIVE BUILDING: Failed to Issue Termination Written Notice IRON MOUNTAIN: "Cardenas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay J&J ALESSANDRA: "Alatorre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages JONROCMAN 930 LLC: "Rojas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay KAPLAN CORNELIA: "Galeana" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: "Pittman" Sues Over Faulty Optical Sights LALA'S ON MELROSE: Altered/Destroyed Receipts, Brea Suit Claims LANNETT COMPANY: "KPH" Sues Over Overpriced Drugs LEGGETT & PLATT: Bid to Reconsider or Stay Bond Order Pending LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Faces "Scroggins" Suit in M.D. Ala. LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Perkins" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay MARS INC: "Vargas" Sues over Packaging Under Filling MASIMO CORPORATION: Physicians Healthsource Suit Still Pending MASIMO CORPORATION: Appeal in Surfactant Suit Pending MDC PARTNERS: Still Defends Firefighter Pension Plan's Suit MDC PARTNERS: Still Defends "Paniccia" Suit in Ontario MEDICREDIT INC: Raffin Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses MEL HARRIS: S.D.N.Y. Court Approves $60MM Settlement in "Sykes" MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Nahari" Suit in D.N.J. MIX CONTRACTING: "Garcia" Suit Seek to Recover Overtime Pay MORGAN STANLEY: Court Narrows Claims in "Genesee" Case MULTI-SHOT LLC: "Ivie" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay NANTKWEST INC: "Forsythe" Sues Over Share Price Drop NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: "Pfeuti" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA NATURE WORKS: "Maturin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay NAVY FEDERAL: Court Rejects "Munday" Class Suit Settlement NCB MANAGEMENT: Status Hearing in "Kaleel" Set for July 11 NEW WAY MINI: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages NONGSHIM CO: Certification of Direct Purchasers Class Sought NORI O INC: "Goh" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay NORTH DAKOTA: EEE Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. N. Dak. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Perez" Suit in D.N.J. NYC TAXI & LIMOUSINE: Nnebe Asks 2nd Circuit to Review Ruling ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION: Can Arbitrate Claims in "Stewart" Suit ORLEANS SHORING: Certification of Class Sought in "Nunez" Suit P.F. CHANG'S: Plaintiff's Counsel Got OK to Appear Via Telephone PAC-12 CONFERENCE: "Cook" Sues Over Football Health Hazard PASON SYSTEMS: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Ratliff" Suit PASQUALE'S ENTERPRISE: "Jackson" Suit to Recover OT Pay, Damages PEARL LOUNGE: "Griffith" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages PENNSYLVANIA: Class Certification Sought in "Stradford" Suit PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Securities Fraud PACIFIC COAST: Settlement in "Welch" & "Berliner" Suits Pending PAPA MURPHY'S: Defending "Lennartson" Class Action in Wash. PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks Decertification in CBNV Mortgage Litigation PROCTER & GAMBLE: Aug. 11 Case Management Conference in "Johnson" QUALITY ALUMINUM: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code QUARRY HILL: Faces "Baldwin" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. RDB CONTRACTING: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay RIVER GREENE: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay RYDAL SQUARE: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn. SARAVIA TOWING: "Castillo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SARATOGA DATA: Aug. 11 Case Mgmt. Conference in Knight Foster Suit SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: English Learners Seek to Certify Class SCOT MURPHY: "Dones" Labor Case Transferred to M.D. Fla. SELECT EXPRESS: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay SOUTH UNIVERSITY: "Hendricks" Sues Over Telemarketing Calls SOUTHERN CABLE: "Wallace" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA SOVRAN SELF: To Defend Against Class Action in Burlington, N.J. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: July 14 Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions SUNTRUST BANKS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in "Brown" SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Felix" Class Action Over FHA Loan Interest TARGET CORP: Police Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop TD BANK: Faces "Buff" Suit in E.D. Penn. TD BANK: "Krulan" Sues Over Short-changing TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Actions Filed TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in "Hayman" Suit TRINET GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of "Welgus" Class Action TUBULAR SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Granted in "Ducote" Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Johnson" Sues Over Unsolicited Texts UNITED RECOVERY: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Hurt" Suit UNITED STATES: Asks 10th Cir. to Review Ruling in "Fletcher" Suit US ASSOC OF CDC: "Brown" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay USF REDDAWAY: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code UTZ QUALITY FOODS: "Hashtpari" Sues Over False Labelling VULCAN MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Texas Brine Case VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Calif. for Unfair Competition VINNY LOVATO'S: "Carmona" Sues Over Racial Discrimination VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gonzales" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Vondrak" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672 WAKEFERN FOOD: "Hilger" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration of Debt Card Transaction Suits WILMINGTON TRUST: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Halldorson" Suit WORLDPAY US: "Mayumba" Suit Contests Non-Compliance Fees WRIGHT MEDICAL: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Hip Implant Case WRIGHT MEDICAL: 82 Pending Lawsuits Related to Profemur WRIGHT MEDICAL: Delaware Chancery Court Dismissed Merger Action WRIGHT MEDICAL: Tennessee Consolidated Action Pending ZILLOW GROUP: Delaware Consolidated Lawsuit Dismissed ZILLOW GROUP: Washington Consolidated Lawsuit Dismissed ZILLOW GROUP: August Trial Date Set in Class Action Appeal ********* ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Still Defends Georgia Suit Over Illegal Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Georgia. In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014 in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014. In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel, administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated. ALL CREATURES: Bid to Certify "Jelus" Collective Action Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William O. Bertelsman entered a memorandum opinion and order in the lawsuit styled KERI JELUS v. ALL CREATURES ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:15-cv-00184-WOB (S.D. Ohio), -- granting the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment; -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; and -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for collective-action certification. The matter before the Court relates to issues regarding an exemption to overtime-wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties agreed at oral argument that no issues of fact warrant a trial on the exemption issue and the Court may decide it on the existing record. Having previously taken the matter under submission, the Court now issues the Memorandum Opinion and Order. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SNlmGwzl ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs in "Williams" to Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, Christopher Williams, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiffs have announced their intention to file an appeal. The Williams case is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and was filed in December 2007. The case involves two classes. The first class includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the- clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior to their first assignments. The other class includes all non- exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until June 2011 who received pay statements from Allstate which allegedly did not comply with California law. On April 13, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to decertify both classes; both classes are thus dissolved unless and until the appellate court orders the classes recertified. Plaintiffs have announced their intention to file an appeal. ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Jimenez" Scheduled for Trial in September ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the case, Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, is scheduled for trial on September 27, 2016. Jimenez was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2010. The plaintiffs allege that they worked off the clock; they also allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime. In April 2012, the court certified a class that includes all adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters, from September 29, 2006 to final judgment. In April 2012, the trial court certified the class, Allstate appealed the court's decision to certify the class, first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Allstate's petition for a writ of certiorari. The case is scheduled for trial on September 27, 2016, which may be vacated because the court has not approved a trial plan. ALLSTATE CORPORATION: No Opt Outs Received in Perez-Brown Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no opt outs were received in the case, Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company. The case of Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that no- fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. Notice to the class was issued in December 2015 and no opt outs were received. In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable in these three cases. ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Defending Against "Rosenberg" Case -------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is litigating one class action, Randy Rosenberg, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This case is brought on behalf of health care providers and insureds who submitted claims for no-fault benefits under personal injury protection policies which were in effect from 2008 through 2012, and were reimbursed based on the fee schedules. They seek a declaratory judgment that Allstate could not properly apply the fee schedules and seek damages for the difference between what they allege are the reasonable medical expenses payable under the personal injury protection coverage and the fee schedule amounts Allstate actually paid. They also seek recovery of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Florida statutes. This case has been stayed by the Illinois federal court pending the outcome of several Florida state court appeals and a decision on this issue by the Florida Supreme Court. ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Non-Jury ERISA Trial to Occur in December --------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Romero I and II consolidated proceedings, the court has entered an order scheduling deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of summary judgment motions on the merits of plaintiffs' ERISA and ADEA claims, and setting a non-jury ERISA trial to occur in December 2016. The Company is defending certain matters in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999. The principal focus in these matters to date related to a release of claims signed by the vast majority of the former agents whose employment contracts were terminated in the reorganization program. These matters include the following: Romero I: In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on behalf of a putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents, filed a putative class action alleging claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief," including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status with all attendant benefits. Romero II: A putative nationwide class action was also filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA ("Romero II"). This action has been consolidated with Romero I. The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents, and attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted the Company's initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. Romero I and II consolidated proceedings: In 2004, the court ruled that the release was voidable and certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed the release, for purposes of effectuating the court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable. In 2007, the court vacated its ruling and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the Company's favor, remanded the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and instructed the trial court to address the validity of the release after additional discovery. Following the completion of discovery limited to the validity of the release, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the release. On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs' and the Company's motions for summary judgment, concluding that the question of whether the releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised disputed issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other things, the court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all claims in Romero I and II. On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to certain issues relating to the validity of the release. The court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion on October 6, 2014, stating, among other things, that individual factors and circumstances must be considered to determine whether each release signer entered into the release knowingly and voluntarily. The court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that the court's October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be subject to class certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court's October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge the validity of the release. In an order entered January 7, 2015, the court denied reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order and clarified that all statutes of limitations to challenge the release would resume running on March 2, 2015. Since the Court's January 7, 2015 order, a total of 459 additional individual plaintiffs have filed separate lawsuits similar to Romero I or sought to intervene in the Romero I action. Trial proceedings commenced to determine the question of whether the releases of the original named plaintiffs in Romero I and II were knowingly and voluntarily signed. Additionally, plaintiffs asserted two equitable defenses to the release which were to be determined by the court and not the jury. As to the first trial proceeding involving ten plaintiffs, the jury reached verdicts on June 17, 2015 finding that two plaintiffs signed their releases knowingly and voluntarily and eight plaintiffs did not sign their releases knowingly and voluntarily. On January 28, 2016, the court entered its opinion and judgment finding in Allstate's favor as to all ten plaintiffs on the two equitable defenses to the release. The trial result is not yet final and may be subject to further proceedings. The remaining two trials for the original Romero I and II plaintiffs were scheduled to commence in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the order setting these trials was subsequently vacated. On February 1, 2016, these cases were reassigned to a new judge who initially entered orders addressing pending motions for reconsideration of the dismissal of plaintiffs' state law claims, but then vacated those orders. On April 12, 2016, these cases were again reassigned to a new judge. On May 2, 2016, the new judge entered an order vacating the setting of additional release trials, consolidating all of the original and intervening plaintiffs' claims, and granting leave to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint by May 20, 2016. The court entered a second order on May 2, 2016, scheduling deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of summary judgment motions on the merits of plaintiffs' ERISA and ADEA claims, and setting a non-jury ERISA trial to occur in December 2016. The court's order also sets deadlines for completion of discovery and summary judgment motions with regard to the remaining claims and defenses by the first quarter of 2017, with a jury trial on those claims and defenses to occur in May 2017. Under its May 2, 2016 orders, the court's focus has turned to the merits of plaintiffs' claims rather than to continuing the proceedings begun in 2009 to determine the validity of plaintiffs' releases. Based on the trial court's February 28, 2014 order in Romero I and II, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the Company for any plaintiff, that would preclude any damages or other relief being awarded to that plaintiff. The final resolution of these matters is subject to various uncertainties and complexities including how trials, post trial motions, possible appeals with respect to the validity of the release, and any rulings on the merits will be resolved. In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable. ALLSTATE GROUP: "Perry" Sues over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------- Andrea Perry, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio residents similarly situated, v. Allstate Group and Encompass Group, Defendants, Case No. CV16863318 (Ohio Com. Pleas, May 16, 2016), seeks actual damages, costs and attorneys' fees for breach of contract. Allstate is an insurance adjuster with Encompass Group as its subsidiary. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant understates and under-pays the actual cash value of property damage suffered by the insured, thereby denying the full amount of indemnity to which they are entitled. Perry's home suffered substantial water damage on or about June 28, 2015. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. DeRoche, Esq. Stuart I. Garson, Esq. GARSON JOHNSON LLC 1600 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Phone: (216) 696-9330 Fax: (216) 696-8558 Email: ideroche@garson.com - and - R. Eric Kennedy, Esq. Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A. 1600 Midland Building 101 Prospect Ave., W. Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216)781-1111 Fax: (216)781-6747 Email: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com dgoetz@weismanlaw.com - and - Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: (440) 352-3391 Fax: (440) 352-3469 Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com AMEC FOSTER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Abila" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Gray H. Miller denied the Plaintiff's opposed motion to conditionally certify and send notice to a putative class in the lawsuit titled ERNESTO ABILA, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. AMEC FOSTER WHEELER NORTH AMERICA CORP., Case No. 4:15-cv-01238 (S.D. Tex.). Judge Miller denied the Motion without prejudice to resubmission if Mr. Abila is later able to submit more persuasive information showing that other similarly situated employees want to join the litigation. The Case is a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit involving overtime compensation. Mr. Abila seeks conditional certification of a collective action on behalf of the following class of potential opt-in litigants: All individuals who are current and former employees of Defendant who performed work similar to Mr. Abila in the United States at any time between May 8, 2013 and the present, and who were not paid time and one half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek (the "FLSA Class"). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f16S5TPX AMERICAN HONDA: Dobbs Seeks Certification of 3 Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the action titled DANIEL DOBBS, SEAN RICKARD, GREG DELANEY, AND WILLIAM HENSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00456-R-JC (C.D. Cal.), as a class action, and appointing each of them and their counsel as class representatives or subclass representatives of this class or subclasses: For Counts I and II of the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to certify this class: All owners or lessees in the United States of 2012-2015 model year Honda vehicles. Excluded from the class definition are all judicial officers assigned to this case, as well as their staff and immediate relatives, and all employees, agents, or officers of Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. In the alternative, if the Court were to find that certification of such a nationwide class were unavailing, the Plaintiffs seek to certify four separate statewide subclasses: All owners or lessees in the States of Wyoming, Texas, Arizona, and Oklahoma of 2012-2015 model year Honda vehicles. Excluded from these alternative subclass definitions are all judicial officers assigned to this case, as well as their staff and immediate relatives, and all employees, agents, or officers of Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. For Count III, Plaintiffs seek to certify three separate subclasses comprised of: All owners or lessees in the States of Texas, Arizona, and Oklahoma of 2012-2015 model year Honda vehicles. Excluded from these alternative subclass definitions are all judicial officers assigned to this case, as well as their staff and immediate relatives, and all employees, agents or officers of Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. The Court will commence a hearing on July 5, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PrvPOh3U The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 836-6000 Facsimile: (310) 836-6010 E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com - and - Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 242-5642 Facsimile: (858) 430-3719 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: "Kogan" Warranty Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aleksandr Kogan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda Motor Co., Ltd, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00429-MHW-EPD (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2016) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 16, 2016, Case No. 1:16-cv-01413. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Torrance, California. Its parent company. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation. Kogan complains of excessive vibration of the 2015 Honda CR-V. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Donovan, Esq. DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 732-6067 Fax: (215) 732-8060 Email: mdonovan@donovansearles.com - and - Krishnan Shanker Chittur, Esq. CHITTUR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 500 Executive Boulevard, Suite 305 Central Westchester Business Park Ossining, NY 10562 Tel: (914) 944-4400 Fax: (914) 840-8537 Email: kchittur@chittur.com AMERICAN WATER: Court Extends Schedules in Chemical Spill Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case related to the West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries chemical spill, a federal court has entered an order extending the schedule for events through briefing related to dispositive motions and expert challenges. On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers, into the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), WVAWC took immediate steps to gather more information about MCHM, augment its treatment process as a precaution, and begin consultations with federal, state and local public health officials. As soon as possible after it was determined that the augmented treatment process would not fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was reached in consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health to issue a "Do Not Use" order for all of its approximately 93,000 customer accounts in parts of nine West Virginia counties served by the Charleston treatment plant. The order addressed the use of water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing, but did not affect continued use of water for sanitation and fire protection. Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1 ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicated would be protective of public health. Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results of the continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by excessive demand, which could have caused additional water quality and service issues. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers were subject to the Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance suggesting that pregnant women avoid consuming the water until the chemicals were at non- detectable levels remained in place. In addition, based on saved samples taken on or before January 18, 2014, PPH/DiPPH was no longer detected in the water supply as of January 18, 2014. On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of MCHM were below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency team established 10 ppb as the "non-detect" level of MCHM in the water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities of the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC continued to work with laboratories to test down to below 2 ppb of MCHM and announced on March 3, 2014, that it had cleared the system to below this level. To date, there are 69 pending cases against WVAWC with respect to this matter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha, Boone and Putnam counties. Fifty-three of the state court cases naming WVAWC, and one case naming both WVAWC and American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC," and together with WVAWC and the Company, the "American Water Defendants") were removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. On December 17, 2015, the federal district court entered orders remanding 52 of the previously removed cases back to the West Virginia Circuit Courts for further proceedings (two of the previously removed cases had been dismissed in the interim). Following that order, seven additional cases were filed against WVAWC in West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha and Putnam counties with respect to this matter. On January 28, 2016, all of the state court cases were referred to West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further proceedings. Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint, and the defendants had until June 1, 2016 to file an answer in response to their claims. Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended consolidated class action complaint for those cases (the "Federal action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to water contaminated with Crude MCHM and provided by WVAWC in Logan, Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and Kanawha Counties and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West Virginia as of January 9, 2014. The amended consolidated complaint names several individuals and corporate entities as defendants, including the American Water Defendants. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a mechanism for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss of use of property, personal injury and other consequences allegedly suffered by purported class members; punitive damages and certain additional relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members from an alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent disease. On April 9, 2015, the court in the Federal action denied a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal jurisdiction. A separate motion to dismiss filed by AWWSC and WVAWC (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses in the Federal action was resolved by the court on June 3, 2015. The court dismissed three causes of action but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining causes of actions and allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the various claims for damages alleged in their amended consolidated complaint. On July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class defined to include persons who resided in dwellings served by WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant ("KVTP") on January 9, 2014, persons who owned businesses served by the KVTP on January 9, 2014, and hourly employees who worked for such businesses. The plaintiffs sought a class-wide determination of liability against the American Water Defendants, among others, and of damages to the three groups of plaintiffs as a result of the "Do Not Use" order issued after the Freedom Industries spill. A court-directed mediation was held at the end of September 2015 with the assistance of private mediators. Representatives of the American Water Defendants, Eastman Chemical, the Federal action plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs in the 53 state court cases as to which removal to Federal court had been sought, as well as insurance carriers for certain of the defendants, participated in the mediation. No resolution was reached and no further mediation discussions have been scheduled to date. On October 8, 2015, the court in the Federal action granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' class certification motion. The court certified a class addressing the alleged fault of Eastman Chemical for tort claims and the alleged fault of the American Water Defendants for tort and breach of contract claims, as well as the comparative fault of Freedom Industries. However, the court granted the joint motion by defendants to exclude certain expert testimony, disallowing the testimony of plaintiffs' economic damages experts, and denied class certification as to any damages, including punitive damages. Thus, determination or quantification of damages, if any, would be made in subsequent proceedings on an individual basis. On December 17, 2015, the court in the Federal action entered a scheduling order that provides for the trial on class issues to begin in July 2016. During the first week of January 2016, three additional cases were filed against one or more of the American Water Defendants, as well as others, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia with respect to this matter. On March 25, 2016, the court in the Federal action entered an order extending the schedule for events through briefing related to dispositive motions and expert challenges and noting that further events in the case would be set by additional orders to be issued by the court in due course. AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: Bid to Certify Class in "Farrow" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and to approve a proposed Notice to all putative collective action members in the lawsuit styled RIENEKE E. FARROW v. AMMARI OF LOUISIANA, LTD., Case No. 2:15-cv-07148-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La.). The Case arises out of Ms. Farrow's employment as a waiter at various restaurants owned and operated by Ammari. She filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act other state laws for, among other things, unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and tips. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GxoyQMZp BANK OF AMERICA: "Hopkins" Sues Over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------- Louis Hopkins, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. U.S. Bancorp, a Delaware Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-00552-SJD (S.D. Ohio, May 16, 2016), seeks damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses, equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution and such other or further relief for breach of contract. Hopkins was employed by U.S. Bank as a debt collector in Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Bank paid its employees a fixed number of hours at a fixed rate. Plaintiff alleges that the actual work rendered in excess of that stipulated in the contract. The Defendants are represented by: Barry D. Levy, Esq. O'CONNOR, ACCIANI & LEVY LPA 1014 Vine Street, Suite 2200 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: 513-241-7111 Fax: 513-241-7197 Email: bdl@oal-law.com - and - Wesley M. Nakajima O'CONNOR, ACCIANI & LEVY LPA 1014 Vine Street, Suite 2200 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: 513-241-7111 Facsimile: 513-241-7197 Email: mn@oal-law.com - and - Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Post Office Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 3033-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-8811 Tel: (404) 496-7295 Fax: (404) 496-7405 Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.* MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 (407) 418-2069 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: Rmorgan@forthepeople.com BIG LOTS: Pontiac Seeks Class Certification in "Willis" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Lead Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System moves the Court for an order certifying a class in the lawsuit entitled ALAN WILLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BIG LOTS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00604-MHW-NMK (S.D. Ohio). The proposed class consists of: All persons who purchased the common stock of Big Lots, Inc. between March 2, 2012 and August 23, 2012, and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing itself and Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund as Class Representatives and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel for the Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=22czzdc9 Lead Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System is represented by: Joseph F. Murray, Esq. Brian K. Murphy, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murray@mmmb.com murphy@mmmb.com - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. Lucas F. Olts, Esq. Austin P. Brane, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com lolts@rgrdlaw.com abrane@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Cynthia J. Billings, Esq. SULLIVAN, WARD, ASHER & PATTON, P.C. 1000 Maccabees Center 25800 Northwestern Highway Southfield, MI 48075-1000 Telephone: (248) 746-0700 Facsimile: (248) 746-2760 E-mail: cbillings@swappc.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 3,600 Surgical Mesh Cases Pending as of May 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of May 2, 2016, over 36,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against the Comany. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of four putative class actions, and fewer than 15 claims in the United Kingdom. The Company said, "Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts." "On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. "As of May 2, 2016, we have entered into master settlement agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 11,000 cases and claims of which approximately 6,000 have been settled. Each master settlement agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing and provides that the settlement and the distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditioned upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. If the participation thresholds under a master settlement agreement are not satisfied, we may terminate that agreement. In addition, we continue to engage in discussions with various plaintiffs' counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims." BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Against "Stevens" Vaginal Mesh Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Teresa L. Stevens filed on or about January 12, 2016, a claim against the Company and three other defendants asserting for herself, and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that the Company imported from China. The Company said, "The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint, which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and damages under state and federal law. "On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. In addition, we are in contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, and are responding voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office's review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the complaint. "We deny the plaintiff's allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously." BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Inks Confidential Settlement in "Fretter" ------------------------------------------------------------ Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Denise Fretter and Maria Korsgaard, claiming to represent a class of current and former female field sales employees at Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation (BSNC), filed on March 18, 2015, a lawsuit against BSNC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege gender discrimination in pay, promotions and differential treatment against them and the putative class. On February 6, 2016, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, and the case has been dismissed. BP EXPLORATION: "Perrault" Sues Over Oil Spill ---------------------------------------------- Brent Perrault, Individually and doing business as Real Estate Central, Plaintiff, v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, BP P.L.C., Transocean, Ltd., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and Sperry Drilling Services, a division of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06350 (E.D. La., May 16, 2016) seeks damages caused by the rig explosion and water pollution, including but not limited to remediation, environmental assessments, loss of use and stigma damages due to contamination of land, diminution of property values, costs for environmental assessments and all other recoverable compensatory damages resulting from oil and petroleum residue from the BP oil spill at Harrison County, Mississippi. BP Exploration, BP America and BP P.L.C. are the lease operators of the Macondo prospect site, responsible for assessing the geology of the prospect site, engineering the well design, obtaining regulatory approvals for well operations. Transocean Ltd., Transocean Deepwater, Transocean Offshore, Transocean Holdings and Triton was responsible for maintaining well control equipment, provided operational support for drilling- related activities as well as onshore supervision and support for those drilling activities. Halliburton provided engineering services, materials, testing, mixing, and pumping for cementing operations as well as onshore engineering support. Plaintiff operated a real estate business in and around the navigable waters of Mississippi. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Citrin, Esq. ELIZABETH A. CITRIN, P.C. 28311 N. Main Street, Suite B-103 Daphne, AL 36526 Phone: 251-626-8808 Fax: 251-626-8868 Mobile: 251-591-6330 Email: elizabeth@elizabethcitrin.com CALIFORNIA CASUALTY: "Oldenburg" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Oldenburg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. California Casualty Management Company, a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01152 (D. Colo., May 17, 2016) seeks overtime compensation due, liquidated and/or punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's and expert fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. Defendant is an insurance company that sells automobile and homeowners insurance to customers across the United States where Plaintiff has been employed in its Colorado Springs, Colorado office as a Sale Representative. Oldenburg claims to have been denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Lewis, Esq. Michael D. Kuhn, Esq. Andrew E. Swan, Esq. 620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 694-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 Email: plewis@lewiskuhnswan.com mkuhn@lewiskuhnswan.com aswan@lewiskuhnswan.com CALIX INC: MOU Reached in Delaware Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that a memorandum of understanding of a settlement in principle has been reached in a class action lawsuit before the Delaware Court of Chancery. On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled as Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint did not name Calix as a defendant. The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees, and other relief. The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011 (the "Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice. The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i) barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii) required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5 million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the class of former Occam stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as class representatives. The certified class is a non- opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continued to seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount. Fact discovery in the case initially closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010. On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013, and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6, 2013. On April 8, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The ruling granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate entity, and accordingly, Occam was dismissed as a defendant in the action. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The court left in place the process-based claims against Occam's former CEO and CFO, and declined to grant summary judgment on separate claims that the director and officer defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained misleading disclosures and had material omissions. On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company, Inc. ("Jefferies") and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This motion sought additional documents from defendants and from Jefferies, Occam's former financial advisor, and requested that the court impose severe sanctions, up to and including a finding of liability against defendants. Defendants have rejected the suggestion that any additional documents should be produced and vigorously opposed the imposition of any sanctions. On September 3, 2014, the court denied the motion without prejudice as to defendants, directed counsel for the defendants to provide an affidavit clarifying the prior conduct of discovery, and ordered discovery into defendants' document collection and review methodologies. The court also ordered Jefferies to produce additional documents. Plaintiffs then filed a motion requesting leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. ("Wilson Sonsini"), Occam's counsel and former defense counsel in this lawsuit, as defendants. That motion was heard by the Court on March 23, 2015. At the hearing the Court vacated the existing April 20, 2015 trial date and indicated it would set a new trial date after ruling on the motion requesting leave to add additional parties. On July 16, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies as a defendant, but granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add Wilson Sonsini as a defendant. On July 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint adding Wilson Sonsini as a defendant in the lawsuit. Defendants filed their answers to the Third Amended Complaint on September 8, 2015. Trial on the matter commenced on April 11, 2016 before the Delaware Court of Chancery. On April 14, 2016, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding of a settlement in principle ("Settlement") to resolve all of the claims pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery and related claims. The Settlement terms provide that neither the Company nor any of its officers or directors would be required to make any contribution to the settlement consideration of $35 million to be paid for the benefit of the plaintiff class. The Company did not previously accrue any estimated loss in connection with this action and, as a result of the Settlement, will not recognize any loss related to this action. Further, the Company has incurred certain defense costs for which its insurance carriers denied coverage or that are otherwise in excess of coverage. In connection with the Settlement (and separate from the settlement consideration), the Company would also receive a cash payment of approximately $4.5 million in partial recovery of such costs. The Settlement is subject to the approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery. As of March 26, 2016, the Company had not recorded any amounts related to this Settlement. Upon approval of the settlement, the Company expects to recognize the $4.5 million in partial recovery of out-of-pocket costs. The Company and the defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the litigation, and the Settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. Since the closing of the merger, the Company has advanced defense costs related to this lawsuit. The Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of the former Occam directors and officers named as defendants in this action against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to claims against such directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and certificate of incorporation. In addition, under the engagement letter between Occam and Jefferies, the Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify Jefferies against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to Jefferies' engagement by Occam. The Company has paid fees and expenses incurred by Jefferies in connection with this matter pursuant to Jefferies indemnity demand under this agreement. The Company has incurred significant legal fees and costs defending this lawsuit and during the fiscal quarter ended March 26, 2016, the Company's defense costs exhausted its available Directors & Officers liability insurance coverage. The legal proceedings have been protracted as plaintiffs continue to seek additional discovery following the court's order re-opening discovery and, most recently, with the addition of Wilson Sonsini as a defendant in the action. The Company has also continued to incur certain expenses that were not covered by insurance, including the Company's costs associated with the Jefferies indemnification obligations. For the fiscal quarter ended March 26, 2016, the Company recorded litigation defense costs and expenses in excess of its insurance coverage of $3.6 million as operating expense. Calix, Inc. is a global provider of broadband communications access systems and software for fiber- and copper-based network architectures that enable communications service providers ("CSPs") to transform their networks and connect to their residential and business subscribers. CASCADE MICROTECH: Class Action to Proceed in Multnomah Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Cascade Microtech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action litigation will proceed in Multnomah County Circuit Court. The Company said, "On February 3, 2016, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with FormFactor, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("FormFactor"), and Cardinal Merger Subsidiary, Inc., an Oregon corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of FormFactor ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, the merger of Merger Sub with and into Cascade Microtech, Inc., with Cascade Microtech, Inc. continuing as the surviving corporation (the "Merger"). Subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding share of our common stock will be converted into the right to receive (a) $16.00 in cash, without interest, and (b) 0.6534 shares of FormFactor common stock, subject to adjustment. Our board of directors, by unanimous vote, approved the Merger Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. In addition, the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (the "HSR Act") for the Merger Agreement expired on March 21, 2016." "Since the public announcement of the proposed Merger between us and FormFactor on February 4, 2016, plaintiffs have filed two putative shareholder class action lawsuits against us, our directors, FormFactor and Merger Sub in connection with our entry into the Merger Agreement with FormFactor. The first lawsuit was filed in Washington County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon on March 8, 2016. The second lawsuit was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon on April 8, 2016. "The plaintiffs in both lawsuits allege that the individual members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders by approving the proposed Merger for inadequate consideration; approving the Merger to obtain unique benefits not shared equally with our other shareholders; failing to take steps to maximize the value paid to our shareholders; failing to take steps to ensure a fair process leading up to the proposed Merger; and agreeing to preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement. The lawsuits also allege claims against FormFactor and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting our directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The second lawsuit also includes allegations that our directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger in the Form S-4/proxy statement/prospectus filed by FormFactor with the SEC on April 1, 2016. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the Merger, rescission of the Merger if it is completed, and an accounting by defendants, plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. "At the request of the plaintiff in the first lawsuit, the court dismissed the first lawsuit without prejudice on April 22, 2016. The litigation will proceed in Multnomah County Circuit Court with the complaint in the second lawsuit as the operative complaint. "Based on the early stage of the second lawsuit, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses to which we may be exposed cannot be estimated and the ultimate resolution of this matter and the associated financial impact to us, if any, remains uncertain at this time. We maintain a directors and officers insurance policy that provides coverage for claims such as those alleged in the complaint, subject to coverage defenses, policy limits and a deductible. Regardless of the outcome of the claims, the defense of the claims may cause us to incur costs and divert resources and the attention of management from our business. "We intend to vigorously defend against the claims in the litigation." Cascade Microtech designs, develops, manufactures and markets advanced wafer probing, thermal and reliability solutions for the electrical measurement and testing of high performance semiconductor devices. CASHCALL INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Inetianbor" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Inetianbor files his renewed motion asking the Court to certify the lawsuit titled ABRAHAM INETIANBOR v. CASHCALL, INC. and JOHN PAUL REDDAM, Case No. 0:13-cv-60066-JIC (S.D. Fla.), as a class action. The Plaintiff asserts that he has diligently sought to correct each deficiency and concern the Court previously raised. The Plaintiff said he has cooperated with the Defendants to secure a fact stipulation, which obviated the need for some discovery and which helps to clarify some of the certification issues. Mr. Inetianbor also moves to join five new plaintiffs each of whom can be an additional class representative. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cvlsb2m9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Varnell, Esq. VARNELL AND WARWICK, P.A. P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Mona L. Wallace, Esq. John S. Hughes, Esq. WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A. 525 N. Main St. Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com CHEMOIL ENERGY: "Lee" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Samuel Lee, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Chemoil Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-00121 (W.D. Tex., May 17, 2016) seeks damages, back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and post-judgment interest under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to- Portal Pay Act. Chemoil is into oilfield fueling operations with main office at 825 N. Broadway, Suite 420, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Lee was employed by Defendant as a fueling operations employee at their Midland County, Texas location. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Tel: (214) 521-3605 Fax: (214) 520-1181 Email: avaught@baronbudd.com COLLECTO INC: C. Dawes Amends Bid for Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER DAWES, and ZACHARIAH PINKNEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA and US ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 16-cv-149 (E.D. Wisc.), move the Court to certify the classes described in their Second Amended Complaint, and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant them (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PLjCGnkO The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com COMCAST CORPORATION: "Wingard" Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Ga. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Wingard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Comcast Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2016cv2733833, was transferred from Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01539-CAP to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Charles A. Pannell, Jr. Comcast is a global media and technology company with two primary businesses, Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifton Dorsen, Esq. James Marvin Feagle, Esq. Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq. Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq. SKAAR AND FEAGLE Suite B, 2374 Main Street Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373 1978 E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com krisskaar@aol.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER LAW FIRM Suite B, 8712 Jefferson Highway Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925 5297 The Defendant is represented by: Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH One Logan Square 18th and Cherry Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 Telephone: (215) 988 2742 - and - Samuel S. Woodhouse III, Esq. THE WOODHOUSE LAW FIRM, LLC Suite 1402, 260 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 214 7200 Facsimile: (404) 214 7202 E-mail: swoodhouse@woodhouselawfirm.com CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS: "Ortega" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Victor Ortega and Carlos Posada, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. CC&D, LLC, Construction Concepts and Joshua Weisman, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01440, (S.D. Tex. May 23, 2016), seek unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney's fees pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Construction Concepts is a Texas corporation owned by Wesman engaged in general construction. Ortega was employed by the Defendants as a general construction worker. Posada was employed as a helper. They claim to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Appeal Briefing Complete ----------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that appellate briefing is complete and ready for determination by the appeals court. In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post- production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did not add any substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action" in which they sought certification of certain claims for injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues" for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right to seek a further class certification of money damages in the future. The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the motions for class certification denying the allegations and raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken and the "hybrid" motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company. A hearing on the "hybrid" class certification was held on June 1st and 2nd, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class as requested by plaintiffs. The Company has appealed the trial court's class certification order, which will be reviewed de novo by the appellate court. The appeal briefing is complete and ready for determination by the court. An unsuccessful mediation was conducted on December 7, 2015. The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. Although not currently at issue in the "hybrid" certification, plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the case. The Company will continue to assert its defenses to the case as certified as well as any future attempt to certify a money damages class. COOPER-STANDARD: Fixed Body Sealing Product Prices, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action complaint alleging conspiracy to fix the price of body sealing products used in automobiles and other light-duty vehicles was filed on March 30, 2016, in Ontario against numerous automotive suppliers, including Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc., CSA U.S. and Cooper-Standard Automotive Canada Limited ("CS Defendants") and Nishikawa Cooper LLC, a joint venture in which the Company holds a 40% interest. Plaintiffs purport to be indirect purchasers of body sealing products supplied by the CS Defendants and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The plaintiffs seek recovery of damages against all defendants in an amount to be determined, punitive damages, as well as pre- judgment and post-judgment interest and related costs and expenses of the litigation. The Company believes the claims asserted against the CS Defendants are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Further, the Company does not believe that there is a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to these claims. Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cooper-Standard Automotive Inc. ("CSA U.S."), is a manufacturer of sealing, fuel and brake delivery, fluid transfer, and anti-vibration systems. The Company's products are primarily for use in passenger vehicles and light trucks that are manufactured by global automotive original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and replacement markets. The Company conducts substantially all of its activities through its subsidiaries. CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Final OK of "Baker" Suit Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William E. Duffin gave his final order approving the class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM BAKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00303-WED (E.D. Wisc.). The settlement provides for, among other things: -- Class Representative William Baker will receive $3,000 in settlement of his individual claims and for his service as Class Representative; -- Based on their petition, Class Counsel will receive $31,500 as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of the lawsuit; -- After the payments to the Class Representative and Class Counsel, including the costs of Class Notice and administration, $20,000 will be distributed pro rata by checks among those members of the Class, who return a duly executed claim form as described in the Settlement Agreement, that is timely or that is otherwise approved by the Court; -- The total amount of any funds remaining that result from uncashed checks sent to class members will be contributed to Make A Difference - Wisconsin as a cy pres award; and -- The parties do not object to treating late claimants as if their claim was timely and including them in the distribution of class funds. Based upon the absence of dispute, and because the difference per class member between allowing or rejecting the late claims is minimal, the Court finds that the claimants whose claim forms were received by class counsel on or before May 19, 2016, will be included in the distribution of class funds. The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the class certified for purposes of the settlement. The Court is informed that actual notice was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, forwarding service requested, to 896 class members. A total of 118 envelopes were returned by the United States Postal Service. No class member requested exclusion and no objections were filed or received. A total of 101 class members timely returned the proof of claim form and are therefore entitled to a pro rata share of the monetary benefits of the settlement. As of May 18, 2016, two late claim forms were returned by class members. The Court further ordered that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0o0peRt2 CRESCENT DIRECTIONAL: "Long" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Long, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Crescent Directional Drilling, L.P., Case No. 4:16-cv-01398 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2016) seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages, attorney fees, unpaid benefits and compensation, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is an oil field services company providing directional drilling services throughout the United States. Long worked for the Defendant as a Directional Driller. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 711 W. Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com DARBY DENTAL: "Lewis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Keith Lewis, Salvatore Russo, Nicholas Jaworski and Alexander Navarro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, Darby Dental Supply, LLC Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 02538 (E.D. N.Y., May 18, 2016) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief pursuant to under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law. Defendant is a nationwide distributor of dental supplies with a main office at 300 Jericho Quadrangle, Jericho, New York 11753, where Plaintiffs worked as account managers. They claim to be denied overtime pay for their work rendered off-the-clock. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. Harold W. LeMar, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 State Highway 35, Suite 10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Tel: (718) 799-9111 Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com haroldwlemar@gmail.com DECIBELS OF OREGON: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Wilson, Plaintiffs, v. Decibels of Oregon, Inc. and Dennis Snyder, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00855-CL (D. Or., May 16, 2016), seeks overtime compensation and permanent injunctive relief enjoining defendants from further violations of federal labor laws; liquidated damages and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Decibels specializes in the installation of communication lines where Plaintiff worked as a Senior Technician, installing cable and internet services. He claims to have been paid below minimum wage rates and denied overtime premium. The Plaintiff is represented by: Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq THE OFFICE OF Q.E. KURANZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 65 SW Yamhill St., Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 503-757-4749 Fax: 503-200-1289 Email: quinn@kuranziaw.com DIRECT ENERGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Richards" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying the action entitled GARY W. RICHARDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:14- cv-01724-VAB (D. Conn.), as a class action and certifying this class: All individual residential and small business consumers enrolled (either initially or through "rolling over" from a fixed rate plan) in a Direct Energy Services, LLC variable rate electricity plan in connection with a property located within Connecticut at any time from November 19, 2008 through and including the date of class certification. Specifically excluded from the Class are: the Defendant, the officers, directors and employees of Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative of Defendant; the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and successors of any of the above persons or organizations in their capacity as such. Mr. Richards also moves that the Court appoint him as Class Representative. He further moves the Court to appoint Izard Nobel LLP as Counsel for the Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OZrtwDdC The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Seth R. Klein, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com sklein@izardnobel.com DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Soto Seeks Certification of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CARLOS SOTO and ARELY LODGE v. DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00445- SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, ask the Court for an order: (a) conditionally certifying a class of current and former employee relations consultant/employee relations specialists, who worked for the Defendant in the last three years and who were not paid overtime compensation for their hours worked over 40 each week; (b) directing the Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable format, to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list containing the full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members, who worked for the Defendant within the last three years; (c) authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send initial notice, in both English and Spanish, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel; (d) directing the Defendant to post at all of its business locations within the United States a copy of the initial notice, in both English and Spanish; (e) authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a follow-up notice, in both English and Spanish, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the instant action; and (f) providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=plWfw09t The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 DS WATERS: Eddings Seeks Approval of $1-Mil. Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CHRIS EDDINGS, KENDALL HEATH, and LINO GONZALEZ, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation; DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02576-VC (N.D. Cal.), bring a renewed motion to move the Court for an order: (1) preliminarily and conditionally certifying this Class for purposes of settlement: All individuals who worked as Costco Sales Representatives for DS Services of America, Inc. at any Costco location in California from February 19, 2011, through preliminary approval of the Settlement; (2) preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs Christopher Eddings, Kendall Heath, and Lino Gonzalez as the Class Representatives for purposes of settlement; (3) preliminary appointing as Class Counsel for purposes of settlement: (1) Michael Morrison from the law firm of ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP, (2) Kyle Todd from the Law Offices of Kyle Todd, and (3) Daniel O'Neill-Ortiz; (4) preliminarily and conditionally approving the class action settlement for $1 million ("Maximum Payment"); (5) preliminarily approving the application for payment to Class Counsel of reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $250,000 (25% of the Maximum Payment) and litigation costs not to exceed $10,000 (currently at $8,352.25); (6) preliminarily approving the payment of incentive/service awards in the amount of $10,000 to Plaintiffs, each ($30,000); (7) preliminarily approving payment of PAGA penalties in the amount of $10,000 with payment therefrom to the California Labor Workforce and Development Agency in the amount of $7,500; (8) preliminarily approving settlement administration services to be provided by Simpluris for fees and costs not to exceed $20,000 (current estimate is $6,999); (9) approving as to form and content the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement; (10) directing that the Notice providing an opportunity to opt out or object to the settlement be mailed by first class mail to the Settlement Class Members; and (11) scheduling a fairness hearing on the question of whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the Settlement Class. The Court will commence a hearing on June 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OD0QwFwh The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael S. Morrison, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 394-0888 Facsimile: (310) 394-0811 E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com - and - Kyle J. Todd, Esq. Daniel O'Neill-Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD 611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1112 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (323) 208-9171 E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine M. Dacre, Esq. Justin T. Curley, Esq. Emily E. Barker, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2930 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com jcurley@seyfarth.com ebarker@seyfarth.com DST SYSTEMS: Defending "Cooper" ERISA Class Action -------------------------------------------------- DST Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action suit was filed against Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Advisory Committee of the Company's 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and certain of the Company's present and/or former officers and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The suit, Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., et. al., was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York on March 14, 2016. "We intend to defend this case vigorously, and, because the suit is still in its preliminary stages, have not yet determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our financial position or results of operations," the Company said. DYNAMIC DOWNHOLE: "Rutherford" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Dean Rutherford, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Downhole Services, LLC and John K. Pease, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00452 (W.D. Tex., May 16, 2016), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Dynamic Downhole Services, LLC operates as Grizzly Completion Services. It provides well completion services, flowback and well testing using tubing downhole tools, completion fluids and crane services. John K. Pease, Jr. is the President. Rutherford worked for Defendants out of their Pleasanton, Texas location. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. The Defendants are represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: Cronin Appeals Ruling in "Keller" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Kevin B. Cronin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Samuel Keller, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., et al. The original cases were assigned Case Nos. 4:09-cv-01967- CW and 4:09-cv-03329-CW, in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, Oakland. Mr. Keller filed a putative class-action complaint asserting that Electronic Arts violated his right of publicity under Section 3344 of the California Civil Code and California common law by using his likeness as part of the NCAA Football video series. The appellate case is captioned as Samuel Keller, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-15922, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee Samuel Michael Keller is represented by: Leonard Wayne Aragon, Esq. Robert B. Carey, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 11 West Jefferson Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: leonard@hbsslaw.com rob@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Ave. Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Swathi Bojedla, Esq. Sathya Gosselin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: sbojedla@hausfeld.com sgosselin@hausfeld.com - and - Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq. Stuart McKinley Paynter, Esq. THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC 1200 G St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 626-4486 E-mail: cboyd@paynterlawfirm.com stuart@paynterlawfirm.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Robert Wozniak, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee Edward C. O'Bannon, Jr., is represented by: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Swathi Bojedla, Esq. Sathya Gosselin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com sbojedla@hausfeld.com sgosselin@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bruce Joshua Wecker, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bwecker@hausfeldllp.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-5607 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com - and - Jonathan S. Massey, Esq. MASSEY & GAIL LLP 1325 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 652-4511 E-mail: jmassey@masseygail.com - and - Seth Rosenthal, Esq. VENABLE LLP 575 7th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 344-4741 Facsimile: (202) 344-8300 E-mail: sarosenthal@Venable.com - and - Renae D. Steiner, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-3415 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com - and - Robert Wozniak, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: rwozniak@fklmlaw.com Defendant-Appellee Electronic Arts, Inc., is represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Robert J. Wierenga, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 S. Main Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com rwierenga@schiffhardin.com Defendant-Appellee National Collegiate Athletic Association, also known as The NCAA, is represented by: Steven A. Hirsch, Esq. Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq. Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 E-mail: shirsch@kvn.com alauridsen@kvn.com rvannest@kvn.com Defendant-Appellee Collegiate Licensing Company, aka CLC, is represented by: Peter Michael Boyle, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 607 14th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 508-5834 E-mail: Pboyle@kilpatricktownsend.com - and - Cindy D. Hanson, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP 1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-6534 E-mail: Chanson@kilpatricktownsend.com ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Facing "Dougherty" Class Suit in E.D. Mich. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported stockholder of the Company filed on January 12, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. Esperion Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing first-in-class, oral, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or LDL-C, lowering therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated LDL-C. EVENTGRID INC: Faces "Windebank" Suit in C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Eventgrid, Inc. The case is captioned Jason Windebank, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Eventgrid, Inc., and Does 1- 20, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 03282 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2016). EventGrid owns and operates Eventgrid.com website. It provides event management software "EventGrid" which is a next generation event registration and ticketing platform. The Plaintiff is represented by: John P Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENEN WEISBERG LLP 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 507 7924 Facsimile: (310) 507 7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com FANDUEL INC: "Daniels" Suit Removed to S.D. Ind. ------------------------------------------------ Akeem Daniels, Cameron Stingily, and Nicholas Stoner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fanduel, Inc. and Draftkings, Inc., Defendants., Case No. 49D11 1605PL 015671 (Ind. Super, May 4, 2016), has been removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on May 18, 2016, Case No. 1:16-cv-01230-TWP-DKL. The class action complaint arises out of an alleged internal rigging of online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual athletic drafting with data tied to actual player statistics that allows game simulations. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel, Inc. entice participants to play by offering cash winnings. Fanduel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th Floor, New York, New York. DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts. FanDuel is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th Floor, New York, New York. Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq. Craig Eldon Pinkus, Esq. BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: (317) 684-5116 Fax: (317) 223-0116 Email: pzimmerly@boselaw.com FANNIE MAE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Luna" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 26, 2016, in the case entitled Clarence Luna v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-04617 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall. The minute entry states that the motion for class certification is denied without prejudice, with the understanding that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains pending as a placeholder and no rights are waived. The Court reminds the parties that the Case is related to Long v. Federal Home Mortgage, 16 C 3072. The Court directs the counsel to ensure that both case numbers are on all pleadings. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6glDCfYh FANTECH SOFTWARE: "Amini" Sues Over Spam Texts ---------------------------------------------- Kevin Amini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fantech Software, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00915-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2016), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant provides fantasy sports gameplay to consumers nationwide. It sent Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers via text message to his cellular phone via an automatic telephone dialing system. Plaintiff did not provide Defendant or its agents with prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Deadline for Settlement Completion Extended ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al., the parties filed a Joint Motion to amend the January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016. On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class Complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The Complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an action in federal court. The Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity- indexed insurance policies. On January 2, 2015, the Court entered Final Judgment in Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, the Company tendered $1 million to the Settlement Administrator for a claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement, which enhancement began on October 12, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to amend the January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016. At March 31, 2016, the Company estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be $9 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $1 million. The Company has incurred and paid $5 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3 million related to settlement costs as of March 31, 2016. Based on the information currently available the Company does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Appeal in "Ludwick" Case Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal in the case, Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd., remains pending. On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri (the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and declaratory relief seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick plaintiff overpaid at least $0 for her annuity. On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a Joint Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss. Judgment was entered on February 12, 2016. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") from the District Court's Order and Judgment. On April 13, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed her Appellant Brief with the Court of Appeals. As of March 31, 2016, the Company did not have sufficient information to determine whether the Company is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million, which was accrued during the six months ended March 31, 2016. FLORIDA GARDEN: "Johnson" Suit Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages --------------------------------------------------------- Leroy T. Johnson, Marqui Passmore and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, v. Florida Garden Center Corp. and Estrella Sampedro, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV- 21813 (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), seeks unpaid hours, punitive damages entered against Defendants along with court costs, interest and any other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Florida Garden Center Corp. is a Florida-based general landscaping contractor owned by Estrella Sampedro where Plaintiffs worked as general laborer and landscapers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alberto Naranjo, Esq. AN LAW FIRM, P.A. 1900 N. Bayshore Dr. 3606 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-942-8070 Email: AN@ANLawFirm.com FOX ENTERTAINMENT: "Le" Suit to Recover Last Pay, Missed Breaks --------------------------------------------------------------- Minh Le, Plaintiff, v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Does 1- 50, Defendants, Case No. BC620375 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2016), seeks damages and/or restitution resulting from non-payment of wages due, non-payment of missed meal and rest periods including premium wages, failure to issue accurate and itemized wage statements in conformity with California Labor Laws, final pay upon termination in conformity with California Labor Law and California Public Policy, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. Plaintiff was hired as a Senior ISeries Systems Administrator, providing consultation services, client support, migrations, and upgrades to various companies and lines of business. Fox Entertainment Group is an entertainment company that operates through filmed entertainment, television stations, television broadcast networks and cable network programming. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Drive, #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FRANCIS JOHN: "Kassab" Breach of Contract Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adam C. Kassab, A. Stephen John, Yehiel Peter Schwartz, Allan Schwartz, Thomas Wheeler and Shripal Daphtary, on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Francis D. John, Theodore B. Baum, Peter Hopper, Melvin Heller, Steve Hooper, Salvatore Tirabassi, Munish Sood, John Ward and Nicholas Massard, Defendants, Case No. GD 16-3635, March 11, 2016, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to the United States District Court of Western Pennsylvania on May 16, 2016, Case No. 2:16-cv-00613-AJS. The complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment over shares of UNSi whose ownership interest was cancelled without consideration through a 1:4,000,000 reverse stock split and the subsequent issue of new shares. The Defendant is represented by: Robert M. Barnes, Esq. Scott D. Livingston, Esq. Daniel J. Stuart, Esq. MARCUS & SHAPIRA LLP One Oxford Centre, 35th Floor 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 471-3490 Fax: (412) 391-2315 Email: livingston@marcus-shapira.com rbarnes@marcus-shapira.com stuart@marcus-shapira.com GANNETT CO: Settlements Reached in "Casagrand" TCPA Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Gannett Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company has agreed to settlements in principle with each of the named plaintiffs in "Casagrand" Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") litigation. The Company said, "On January 2, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against Gannett in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Casagrand et al v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al). The suit claims various violations of the TCPA arising from allegedly improper telemarketing calls made to consumers by one of our vendors. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class that would include all telemarketing calls made by the vendor or us. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation ($1,500 for willful violations). In April 2016, we agreed to settlements in principle with each of the named plaintiffs." GENESCO INC: "Murray" Sues over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ Nicole Murray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Genesco Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv- 02815-RBK-JS (D.N.J., May 19, 2016), seeks penalties, termination of the terms of the "Disclaimer" and "Indemnification" provisions of the Defendants' "Privacy Policy" set forth on Defendant's website and reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs for violation of the New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. Defendant Genesco Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of Tennessee, with its headquarters located at 1415 Murfreesboro Pike, Suite 190, Nashville, Tennessee 37217-2835. It operates as Johnston & Murphy, and operates a e-commerce website www.johnstonmurphy.com Plaintiff purchased a scarf through Defendant's website, and alleges unfair, one-sided provisions contained in its "Privacy Policy" consumer contracts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lazaro Berenguer, Esq. Gerald H. Clark, Esq. Mark W. Morris. Esq. Clark Law Firm Pc 811 16th Avenue Belmar, NJ 07719 Tel: (732) 443-0333 - and - Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 GOT CAPITAL: Korea Week Loses Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, KOREA WEEK, INC. v. GOT CAPITAL, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 15-6351 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge Mark A. Kearney denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as the merchant Plaintiffs offer no class representative adequate to represent the merchant class as each named class representative waived its right to participate in a class action in exchange for business financing. Plaintiffs Korea Week, Inc., R2L, Inc. d/b/a Koba Restaurant, In Ja Hwang, J & S Cleaners, Kim's Farms, and Master Yu's Power Kick, LLC seek to certify a class of persons or businesses who signed merchant cash advance financing arrangements ("MCA") with Defendants from January 2007 to the present which allegedly violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RIC0"). Plaintiffs allege Defendants target the Korean-American and Asian- American business communities through marketing, advertising, and soliciting of MCA financing in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Texas, California and England. Plaintiffs, all small business merchants, allege Defendants advertise MCA arrangements purporting to be legitimate purchases of Plaintiffs' receivables but which are really high interest short-term loans with rates in excess of 150-200% constituting loan sharking, predatory lending, and money laundering schemes. Plaintiffs allege Defendants forced repayment of these loans with a penalty in cash when Plaintiffs were late in making payments causing Plaintiffs "fear, intimidation, pressure, anxiety, and emotional stress." Plaintiffs argue that the Court should certify their proposed class because their claims satisfy the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and because common issues regarding the RICO claims predominate and a class action is a superior method of adjudication required by Rule 23(b)(3). Defendants oppose class certification, arguing all the contracts between the parties contain a class action waiver barring any such action. Defendants alternatively argue Plaintiffs' RICO claims fail to satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3). Plaintiffs argue the class action waivers are procedurally and substantively unconscionable, cannot be enforced, and their claims must proceed under Rule 23. The Court ruled that, "Each named Plaintiff seeks to be appointed as a class representative even though each agreed to waive "any right to assert any claims against any other party as a representative or member in any class or representative action." Plaintiffs do not claim lack of consideration or performance voids their promise. Rather, they ask us to void their class action waiver as unconscionable principally because they speak Korean as a principal language and while they are experienced merchants they should be treated as consumers. They can text and understand English as merchants in the United States. They are not consumers or employees in the sense of disproportionate economic leverage. Unconscionability is a factual determination based on a sliding scale analysis of each Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiffs elected to present only the testimony of Ms. Hwang and Mr. Won. As set forth above, neither demonstrated procedural or substantive unconscionability. The Plaintiffs agreed to pursue claims on their own behalf and cannot now change their minds and transform into fiduciaries for others." A copy of the Court's May 27 Order is available at https://is.gd/0sYMGG from Leagle.com. A copy of the Court's May 27 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/d4VDrG from Leagle.com. GROWELL BRANDS: Has Until June 14 to Respond to "McMillan" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GLENN McMILLAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, and GROWELL BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00695- DAD-SMS (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder granted defendant Gro-Well Brands, Inc.'s ex parte application for additional time to respond to the amended complaint. Specifically, Gro-Well Brands has to file an answer to the amended complaint by June 14, 2016. A copy of the Court's May 27 order is available at https://is.gd/JQ1Pma from Leagle.com. Glenn McMillan, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. De Re, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., pro hac vice, Thomas A. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., pro hac vice, Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Meghan George, Law Offices Of Todd M. Friedman. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Neil K. Gilman -- ngilman@Hunton.com -- and Phillip J. Eskenazi -- peskenazi@Hunton.com -- at Hunton & Williams LLP. Gro-Well Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Michael Roberts -- eric.roberts@dlapiper.com -- and Todd Michael Noonan -- todd.noonan@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP. HARRIS COUNTY: "O'Donnell" Seeks Temporary Restraining Order ------------------------------------------------------------ Maranda Lynn O'Donnell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Harris County, Texas, Sheriff Ron Hickman, Eric Stewart Hagstette, Joseph Licata Iii, Ronald Nicholas, Blanca Estela Villagomez, Jill Wallace, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01414 (S.D. Tex., May 19, 2016), seeks a temporary restraining order, equitable relief, and preliminary injunctive relief enjoining Harris County from using post-arrest procedures. Plaintiff was arrested for driving with an invalid license and is currently detained. Defendants are officials of the Harris County Police Force. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal S. Manne, Esq. Lexie G. White, Esq. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 651-9366 Email: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com lwhite@susmangodfrey.com - and - Michael Gervais 560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 336-8330 Email: mgervais@susmangodfrey.com - and - Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. Elizabeth Rossi, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW South Building, 9th Floor Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 670-1004 Email: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org erossi@equaljusticeunderlawl.org HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Statement -------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed an ex parte motion for second extension of time to file the pretrial statement in a state consolidated action from February 15, 2016 to August 15, 2016. Since the December 3, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement, eight purported class action complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii by alleged stockholders of HEI against HEI, Hawaiian Electric (in one complaint), the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The lawsuits are captioned as follows: Miller v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2531-12 KTN (December 15, 2014) (the Miller Action); Walsh v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2541-12 JHC (December 15, 2014) (the Walsh Action); Stein v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12 KTN (December 17, 2014) (the Stein Action); Brown v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN (December 30, 2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642- 12 KTN (December 30, 2014) (the Cohn State Action); Guenther v. Watanabe, et al., Case No. 15-1-003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the Guenther Action); Hudson v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0013-01 JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson Action); Grieco v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0094-01 KKS (January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action). On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action, and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions and to appoint co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Cohn State Action was voluntarily dismissed. On January 27, 2015, Cohn filed a purported class action captioned Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Civil No. 15-00029-JMS-RLP in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii against HEI, the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries (the Cohn Federal Action). On February 13, 2015, the state court orally granted the plaintiffs' motions to consolidate the seven state court actions and appoint co-lead counsel and entered a written order granting the motions on March 6, 2015. On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first consolidated complaint in state court that added as a defendant J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (JP Morgan), the financial advisor to HEI for the Merger, and deleted Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. as a defendant and concurrently served a first request for production of documents on HEI and the individual directors. On March 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited discovery in the consolidated state action and thereafter on March 25, 2015 withdrew their request for limited discovery and first request for production of documents as a result of the parties' agreement to conduct certain specified limited discovery which included a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order protecting the confidentiality of certain information exchanged between the parties in connection with discovery in the consolidated action that was filed on April 6, 2015. On April 15 and 17, 2015, a deposition of a representative of HEI and a representative of JP Morgan were taken, respectively. On April 21, 2015, plaintiffs confirmed the cancellation of the preliminary injunction hearing that had been scheduled for May 5, 2015 in the consolidated b vaction and on April 23, 2015, the state court entered a stipulation and order to extend indefinitely the time to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended consolidated complaint. On April 30, 2015, the state court entered a consolidated case management order confirming the consolidated treatment of the state actions for purposes of case management, pretrial discovery, procedural and other matters. On May 27, 2015, the federal court entered a stipulation and order approving the stipulation of the parties to stay the Cohn Federal Action pending the resolution of the state court consolidated action and administratively closing the Cohn Federal Action without prejudice to any party. On May 29, 2015, the state court entered a stipulated order amending the consolidated caption to read IN RE Consolidated HEI Shareholder Cases, Master File No. Civil No. 1CC15-1-HEI, to add JP Morgan as a named defendant in each individual action, add the caption for the Grieco Action, and remove Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. from the caption in the Brown Action. In October 2015, several depositions of HEI representatives were taken in the state consolidated action. On February 9, 2016, plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for second extension of time to file the pretrial statement in the state consolidated action from February 15, 2016 to August 15, 2016. The actions allege, among other things, that members of HEI's Board of Directors (Board) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction, and that the Merger Agreement involves an unfair price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that HEI, NEE and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of HEI's directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining the HEI Board from consummating the Merger, (iii) an order directing the HEI Board to exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of HEI's stockholders, (iv) a rescission of the Merger to the extent that it is consummated, and/or (v) damages suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged actions. Plaintiffs in the consolidated state action also allege that JP Morgan had a conflict of interest in advising HEI because JP Morgan and its affiliates had business ties to and investments in NEE. The consolidated state action also alleges that the HEI Board violated its fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form S-4. In addition, the Cohn Federal Action alleges that the HEI Board violated its fiduciary duties and federal securities laws by omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form S-4. HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE: "Rosenberg" Sues for Sexual Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Kirsten Rosenberg, On behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. d/b/a Hennepin County Medical Center, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-16-7444 (Minn. Dist., May 16, 2016), seeks damages, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements incurred, treble damages, liquidated and punitive damages, equitable relief and such further and other relief for violation of the Equal Pay Act, Minnesota's Equal Pay for Equal Work Law, Minnesota Human Rights Act (Sexual discrimination), and violation of the False Claims Act and Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. operates under Hennepin County Medical Center, a Minnesota healthcare organization with principal place of business at 701 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 where Rosenberg worked as a a licensed independent clinical social worker. She accuses Defendant of denying her promotion over her male counterparts despite her qualifications. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Schlesinger, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Fax: (612) 338-4878 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Email: schlesinger@nka.com HORSEHEAD HOLDINGS: "Jani" Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------- Umesh Jani, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. James M. Hensler, Robert D. Scherich and Gregory M. Belland, Defendants., Case No. 1:16-cv-00369-UNA (D. Del., May 18, 2016), seeks damages and interest, attorney fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Horsehead, together with its subsidiaries, was a leading U.S. producer of zinc metal and a leading recycler of electric arc furnace dust. Plaintiff alleges that Horsehead common stock was traded at artificially inflated prices due to false statements. Horsehead filed for bankruptcy on February 2, 2016. Plaintiff purchased shares of Horsehead Holding and lost substantially. The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com - and - Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 504-4957 Fax: (302) 397-2681 Email: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewssrpringer.com dsborz@andrewsspringer.com IMS HEALTH: "Chiu" Sues Over Shady Merge Deal --------------------------------------------- Daniel Chiu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ari Bousbib, John G. Danhaki, James Fasano, Karen L. Katen, Sharad S. Mansukani, Ronald A. Rittenmeyer, Todd B. Sisitsky, and Bryan M. Taylor, Defendants, Case No. 12340 (Del. Ch., May 16, 2016) seeks enjoinment from consummating acquisition; damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duties; costs and disbursements of this action; reasonable attorney and expert fees; and such other and further equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duties. Quintiles Transnational Holdings Inc. is to acquire the outstanding shares of IMS Health for a fixed exchange ratio of 0.384 shares of Quintiles common stock for each share of IMS Health common stock. Plaintiff alleges that this transaction was under valued. Chiu has been a stockholder of IMS Health. Ari Bousbib, John G. Danhaki, James Fasano, Karen L. Katen, Sharad S. Mansukani, Ronald A. Rittenmeyer, Todd B. Sisitsky and Bryan M. Taylor are members of the board of directors of IMS Health. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Banko, Esq. Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 482-3182 Fax: (302) 482-3612 Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com dfarrell@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel.: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com INNOVATIVE BUILDING: Failed to Issue Termination Written Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Mickens on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Innovative Building Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00867-YK (M.D. Penn., May 13, 2016), seeks to collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until he was terminated as part of, or as a result of a plant closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. Innovative Building provides access controls and enterprise-level solutions for building automation, cctv, integration of systems, and mechanical systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rolf Kroll, Esq. James E. Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975 8114 Facsimile: (717) 975 8124 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888 1112 Facsimile: (302) 888 1119 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. David C. Tufts, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 210 S. Washington Ave. Post Office Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36652 Telephone: (251) 433 8100 Facsimile: (251) 433 8181 IRON MOUNTAIN: "Cardenas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Cardenas, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc., an active Delaware Corporation, Iron Mountain Incorporated, an active Delaware Corporation and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. BC620476 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2016), seeks damages for unpaid compensation owed for missed meal and rest periods, unpaid wages, civil penalties under Labor Code, prejudgment interest and costs under the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Defendants are in the business of records management, information destruction, data backup and recovery services with facility located at 8700 Mercury Lane in Pico Rivera, California 90660 where Plaintiff worked as a warehouse employee. Cardenas was not paid all his wages at the time of his termination and was also deprived of lawful meal and rest periods and failed to receive itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Haik Hacopian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN 5023 N. Parkway Calabasas Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 876-9627 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com haikhacopian@gmail.com J&J ALESSANDRA: "Alatorre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Alatorre individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J&J Alessandra, Inc. and Carmelo A. Scalzo, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05404 (N.D. Ill., May 19, 2016), seeks all unpaid wages, statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. J&J Alessandra, Inc. operates The Warehouse Bar & Pizzeria located at 1419 W. Fullerton Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60614, owned by Carmelo A. Scalzo. Plaintiff worked as a busser, food runner and dishwasher. Alatorre alleges that he was not paid for the last two weeks that he worked, worked through meal breaks and was denied overtime pay. Plaintiffs are represented by: Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Tel: 312-878-1302 Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com JONROCMAN 930 LLC: "Rojas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Aguilar Rojas, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JONROCMAN 930, LLC, Samuel Gavish and Lloyd B. Sugarman, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03683 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2016), seeks unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs and for such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minimum Wage Act, New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendant is a full-service restaurant doing business as Johnny Rockets and located at 930 Third Avenue, New York, New York, where Plaintiff worked as a cook, dishwasher, and deliveryman. Rojas claims to have been denied overtime and reimbursement for his uniform that he paid for. The Defendants are represented by: John M. Gurrieri Brandon D. Sherr Justin A. Zeller LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com KAPLAN CORNELIA: "Galeana" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bonifacio Vasquez Galeana, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kaplan Cornelia Inc., (d/b/a Papaya Dog), First Avenue Papaya, Inc., (d/b/a Papaya Dog), Papaya Dog Enterprises 42 NY LLC (d/b/a Papaya Dog), PDF Foods, Inc.(d/b/a Little Italy Pizza III), Scott A. Herron, Steven Kaplan, and Tiran Tsadok, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03594 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants own a chain of fast food/fruit juice take outs and a pizzeria located at New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: "Pittman" Sues Over Faulty Optical Sights ------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Pittman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L-3 Communications EOtech, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00438-DGK (W.D. Mo., May 16, 2016), seeks to recover actual, consequential, punitive and/or exemplary damages, declaratory relief, costs, equitable remedies (including disgorgement) and reasonable attorney's fees resulting from fraud/intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/nondisclosure, and unjust enrichment, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, State Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts and/or Consumer Protection Acts, Texas Consumer Protection Act, Texas Revised Statutes (Implied Warranty of Merchantability). Plaintiff claims to have purchased a holographic weapon sighting device from the Defendant that allegedly fails in cold temperatures and in humid environments. L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that designs, manufactures, and markets holographic weapon sights with principal place of business at 1201 E. Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48108. L-3 Communications Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim E. Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Tel: (816) 876-2600 Fax: (816) 221-8763 Email: timd@dollar-law.com - and - Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Andrew M. Gonyea, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48703 Tel: (248) 841-2200 Fax: (248) 652-2852 Email: ssa@millerlawpc.com amg@millerlawpc.com - and - Keith Altman, Esq. EXCOLO LAW, PLLC 26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400 Southfield, MI 48033 Tel: (516) 456-5885 Fax: (516) 795-7599 Email: kaltman@lawampmmt.com - and - Ari Kresch, Esq. EXCOLO LAW, PLLC 26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400 Southfield, MI 48033 Tel: (248) 565-2099 Fax: (248) 436-6858 LALA'S ON MELROSE: Altered/Destroyed Receipts, Brea Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Pablo Brea, an individual, and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Lala's On Melrose, Inc., a California Corporation; Lala's Studio City, Inc., a California Corporation; Mario Balul, an individual; Horacio Weschler Ferrari, an individual; and Does 1-50; inclusive; the Defendants, Case No. BC620478 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover costs, penalties, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice by retaliating against Plaintiff for complaining about Defendants' practice of altering and destroying receipts and underreporting daily cash income received to state and/or federal tax authorities, and/or for refusing to participate in these illegal activities. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Milon, Esq. Angel D. Pluas, Esq. MILON PLUAS LLP 909 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 229 0844 Facsimile: (626) 389 5451 E-mail: joshua@milonpluasllp.com angel@milonpluasllp.com - and - Brian G. Hannemann, Esq. HANNEMANN LAW FIRM 1042 N. Mountain Ave., Suite B-222 Upland, CA 91786 Telephone: (909) 980 7878 Facsimile: (909) 912 8999 E-mail: bghesq@gmail.com LANNETT COMPANY: "KPH" Sues Over Overpriced Drugs ------------------------------------------------- KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc., IMPAX Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Allergan PLC and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02432-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 18, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive and equitable relief, costs of suit, reasonable attorney's fees for violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline. KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name Kinney Drugs. It claims it purchased generic digoxin and doxycycline manufactured by one or more Defendants at supra- competitive prices. Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor of generic digoxin and generic doxycycline. Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and distributor of generic digoxin. Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a generic version of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets made by Covis Pharma. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Erin C. Burns, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: 215-923-9300 Fax: 215-923-9302 Email: dnast@nastlaw.com ebums@nastlaw.com - and - Michael L. Robe1is, Esq. Debra G. Josephson, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle P.O. Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223 Tel: 501-821-5575 Fax: 501-821-4474 Email: mikerobertsW{ro be1islawfirm.us debrajosephsonW1robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmithfa{robertslawtinn.us - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 0214 2 Tel: 617-482-3700 Fax: 617-482-3003 Email: tom@hbsslaw.com lauren@hbsslaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: 612-333-8844 Fax: 612-339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Bethany R. Turke, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL60603 Tel: 312-346-2222 Fax: 312-346-0022 Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com brtr@,wexlerwallace.com jnb@wexlerwallace.com - and - Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq. David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Wm Dane DeKrey, Esq. ZIMME1MAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 Email: charles.zimmeiman@zimmreed.com david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com dane.dekrey@zimmreed.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY P.C. One Libetiy Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-496-8282 Fax: 215-496-0999 Email: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com LEGGETT & PLATT: Bid to Reconsider or Stay Bond Order Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is awaiting the Court's ruling on a motion to reconsider or stay the bond order. The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers, bring damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. "We filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action for failure to state a legally valid claim. The Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the Court certified the indirect purchaser class. We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was denied. On November 18, 2014, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on March 2, 2015. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to attend non- binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing." "We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. Indirect Class Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an amount not materially different from the amount previously accrued for this claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The Court preliminarily approved the class settlement on July 31, 2015. The full settlement amount was paid into escrow in the third quarter of 2015. The final settlement approval hearing was held on December 15, 2015 and the Court granted final approval of the settlement. "Several objectors filed notices of appeal of the order of approving the class settlement to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 14, 2016, the Court ordered the objectors to post an appeal bond by May 13, 2016. Certain of the objectors have filed a motion to reconsider or stay the bond order. We are awaiting the Court's ruling." LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Faces "Scroggins" Suit in M.D. Ala. ----------------------------------------------------- Marilyn R. Scroggins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LifePoint Health, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00338-WHA-CSC (M.D. Ala., May 12, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Judge W. Harold Albritton, III. LifePoint is a leading hospital company dedicated to providing patient-centered care in rural and non-urban communities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Metzger, Esq. Richard Taylor, Esq. Steven Anthony Martino, Esq. William Lloyd Copeland, Esq. TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C. 51 Saint Joseph Street Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433 3131 Facsimile: (251) 405 5080 E-mail: kenny@taylormartino.com richard@taylormartino.com stevemartino@taylormartino.com lloyd@taylormartino.com LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------- LPL Financial Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in federal district court alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the Company's share repurchases and financial performance in late 2015. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuit. LPL Financial Holdings Inc. ("LPLFH"), a Delaware holding corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") provides an integrated platform of brokerage and investment advisory services to independent financial advisors and financial advisors at financial institutions (collectively "advisors") in the United States of America. Through its custody and clearing platform, using both proprietary and third-party technology, the Company provides access to diversified financial products and services enabling its advisors to offer independent financial advice and brokerage services to retail investors (their "clients"). LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Perkins" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Perkins and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc., individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21764-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, interests, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, injunctive relief, and such other, further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Luxottica Retail operates as Sunglass Hut, a retail chain located all over the U.S. Plaintiff worked as a Store Manager in the Defendant's Miami, Florida location. Perkins claims to have been denied overtime pay. The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416-5005 Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com MARS INC: "Vargas" Sues over Packaging Under Filling ---------------------------------------------------- Eric Lankenau-Ray and Carmen Vargas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mars, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-2660 (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees resulting from Negligent Misrepresentation and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, False Advertising Law, New York General Business Law. Plaintiffs purchased Uncle Ben's Rice Products from the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that product packaging was 50% empty. Mars, Inc. is a corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware and with its headquarters in McLean, Virginia in the business of confectionery products. It sells its Rice Products through various local grocery stores, markets and online retailers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Andrei Armas, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com andrei@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com MASIMO CORPORATION: Physicians Healthsource Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the case by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested in the Company's petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the petition. On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the appeal. The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. MASIMO CORPORATION: Appeal in Surfactant Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the appeal in a class action related to the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama, is pending. On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's decision. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. MDC PARTNERS: Still Defends Firefighter Pension Plan's Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit by North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan. On July 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan filed a putative class action suit in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants the Company, CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, and former CAO Michael Sabatino. The plaintiff alleges violations of Sec. 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Sec. 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and other public statements regarding executive compensation, goodwill accounting, and the Company's internal controls. The Company is vigorously defending this suit. MDC Partners is one of the fastest-growing and most influential marketing and communications networks in the world. Its 50+ advertising, public relations, branding, digital, social and event marketing agencies are responsible for some of the most memorable and engaging campaigns for the world's most respected brands. As "The Place Where Great Talent Lives," MDC Partners is known for its unique partnership model, empowering the most entrepreneurial and innovative talent to drive competitive advantage and business growth for clients. By leveraging technology, data analytics, insights, and strategic consulting solutions, MDC Partners drives measurable results and optimizes return on marketing investment for over 1,700 clients worldwide. MDC PARTNERS: Still Defends "Paniccia" Suit in Ontario ------------------------------------------------------ MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit by Roberto Paniccia. On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming as Defendants the Company, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO USA LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other Canadian provinces and territories) as well as common law misrepresentation based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose material facts with respect to an SEC investigation. The Company is also vigorously defending this suit. MDC Partners is one of the fastest-growing and most influential marketing and communications networks in the world. Its 50+ advertising, public relations, branding, digital, social and event marketing agencies are responsible for some of the most memorable and engaging campaigns for the world's most respected brands. As "The Place Where Great Talent Lives," MDC Partners is known for its unique partnership model, empowering the most entrepreneurial and innovative talent to drive competitive advantage and business growth for clients. By leveraging technology, data analytics, insights, and strategic consulting solutions, MDC Partners drives measurable results and optimizes return on marketing investment for over 1,700 clients worldwide. MEDICREDIT INC: Raffin Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHEENA RAFFIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MEDICREDIT, INC., THE OUTSOURCE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:15-CV-04912-GHK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a California Penal Code Section 632.7 Class consisting of these Class and Subclasses: IPA 632.7 Subclass: All persons in California whose inbound and outbound telephone conversations were recorded without their consent by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and wherein a cellular or cordless device was used by at least one party to the conversation, within the one year prior to the filing of the original Complaint. IPA 632.7 Cell Phone Subclass: All persons in California whose inbound and outbound telephone conversations were recorded without their consent by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and wherein a cellular device was used by the Subclass Member, within the one year prior to the filing of the original Complaint. IPA 632.7 Late Advisory Cell Phone Class: All persons in California whose inbound and outbound telephone conversations were recorded without their consent by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and wherein a cellular device was used by the Subclass Member, but where Defendants or its agent/s did not advise the Subclass Member within 30 seconds of the onset of the call, that their call was being recorded, within the one year prior to the filing of the original Complaint. The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of the Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of the Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. A hearing will be held on July 18, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6IpvJsjv The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com MEL HARRIS: S.D.N.Y. Court Approves $60MM Settlement in "Sykes" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 24, 2016, approved the settlements reached by the plaintiffs with certain of the defendants in the case, Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC. Under the deal, the Defendants will pay roughly $60 million into a settlement fund. According to an Allocation Plan, the Settlement Agreements provide for: (a) a settlement fund of $46 million paid by the Leucadia Defendants plus L-Credit LLC's share of additional moneys LR Credit and its subsidiaries received from debt portfolio assets on or after January 1, 2015; (b) a settlement fund of $7,975,000 paid for by the Mel Harris Defendants plus Rushmore Recovery Management LLC's share of additional moneys LR Credit and its subsidiaries receive from debt portfolio assets on or after November 12, 2015; and (c) a settlement fund of $517,500 paid for by the Samserv Defendants. Some 8,300 class members (those with the strongest legal claims) will receive between 96% to 98% of their money back. Another 7,400 class members (those with somewhat weaker claims) will receive 81% to 83% of their money back. An additional 1,700 class members (those with relatively weaker claims) will receive 66% to 68% of their money back. A copy of the Approval Order is available at: https://is.gd/YmMVZF More information on the case is available at: https://www.sykesclassaction.com/ Leucadia National Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries and officers are named as defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 9 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The named defendants also include the Mel Harris law firm, certain individuals and members associated with the law firm, and a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its employees. The complaint alleges that default judgments obtained by the law firm against approximately 124,000 individuals in New York courts with respect to consumer debt purchased by our subsidiaries violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York General Business Law and the New York Judiciary Law (alleged only as to the law firm). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs and others similarly situated. We asserted that we were an investor with respect to the subject purchased consumer debt and were regularly informed of the amounts received from debt collections, but otherwise had no involvement in any alleged illegal debt collection activities." "On December 29, 2010, the District Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss in part (including as to the claims made against us and our subsidiaries) and granted them in part (including as to certain of the claims made against our officers). On March 28, 2013, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a Rule 23(b)(3) class. On February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the certification of these classes. None of these decisions addresses the ultimate merits of the case. "On March 18, 2015, we and plaintiffs executed a settlement agreement that provided additional detail regarding the terms of a settlement set out in a December 14, 2014 binding term sheet pursuant to which we have previously accrued approximately $50 million. On November 12, 2015, plaintiffs executed a settlement agreement with the other defendants in the case, and we and plaintiffs executed a first amendment to our settlement agreement to modify the agreement to reflect that settlement of all claims as to all parties had been reached. Both our settlement agreement and that of the other defendants were submitted to the Court on November 12, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the Court entered an order that, among other things, preliminarily approved the settlement agreements, authorized the parties to send notice to the settlement class members and set a fairness hearing for May 11, 2016." MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Nahari" Suit in D.N.J. --------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is captioned Tiran Nahari, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02700-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 12, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Kevin McNulty. Midland Credit Management provides debt collections and information management services. It collects on credit cards, automobiles, unsecured consumer debts, and telecom accounts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com MIX CONTRACTING: "Garcia" Suit Seek to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Damian Garcia on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Mix Contracting Corp. and Miroslaw Poplawski, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02517 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Mix is a construction company located at 20 Beach Street Apt. 6D, Rockaway Beach, NY. Garcia worked for the Defendants as a construction worker. The Defendants are represented by: Darren Rumack, Esq. KLEIN LAW GROUP 11 Broadway, Suite 960 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 344-9022 Fax: (212) 344-0301 Email: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com MORGAN STANLEY: Court Narrows Claims in "Genesee" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court on March 28, 2016, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the case by Genesee County Employees' Retirement System. On October 20, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed against the Company and other defendants styled Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation et al. in the SDNY. The action was later consolidated with four similar actions in SDNY under the lead case styled Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corporation et al. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 2, 2015 asserting claims for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract. The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in antitrust violations with regards to the process of setting ISDAfix, a financial benchmark and seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and other relief. MULTI-SHOT LLC: "Ivie" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Buck Allen Ivie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Multi-Shot, LLC d/b/a MS Energy Services and d/b/a MS Directional, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00166 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2016), seeks unpaid and/or underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. MS Energy is an oilfield service company that provides directional drilling, downhole performance motors, directional surveying, steering tools and downhole electric wires. Ivie worked as an operator/driller. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Burke, Esq. Michael M. Guerra, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP 3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850 McAllen, TX 78501 Tel: (956) 682-5999 Fax: (888) 317-8802 Email: mburke@mmguerra.com - and - Timothy D. Raub, Esq. RAUB LAW FIRM PC 814 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 880-8181 Fax: (361) 887-6521 Email: timraub@raublawfirm.com NANTKWEST INC: "Forsythe" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- John Steven Forsythe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nantkwest, Inc., Patrick Soon- Shiong, Richard J. Tajak, Angela Wilson and Richard Gomberg, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03438 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NantKwest is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on using cells to treat cancer, and infectious and inflammatory diseases. It is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 3530 John Hopkins Court, San Diego, California. Patrick Soon-Shiong was Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of NantKwest. Richard J. Tajak, Angela Wilson and Richard Gomberg served as CFOs at different times. Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company business, operations and prospects. Specifically, it failed to disclose that it was improperly accounting for stock- based awards in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. NantKwest issued financial statements that lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting. NantKwest securities fell drastically as a result of corrective disclosures. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - Brandon Walker, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 Email: walker@bespc.com NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: "Pfeuti" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Hermann Pfeuti and Alfred Erzak, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Naples Transportation & Tours, LLC, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Randall R. Smith and Tamir Rankow, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00364-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours within a work week. From at least December 2014 continuing through February 2016, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs a rate of one-half times regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single wok week. Naples Transportation is a chauffeur car service in Naples, Florida. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 4432 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549 6689 E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com NATURE WORKS: "Maturin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Seth Maturin, Benjamin Bernheisel, Dustin Boutte, Gaige Touchet, and Tommy Walker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nature Works, a Louisiana corporation, and ERIC L. LANDRY, an individual Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv- 00715, (W.D. La. May 23, 2016), seek unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney fees pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Nature Works provides landscaping services to business, residential, and government clients in and around New Iberia, Louisiana. It is owned by Landry. Plaintiffs were employed to perform lawn care, landscaping and maintenance and were denied overtime premium for all time worked in excess of forty hours each week. Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Tel: (201) 630-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Timothy W. Basden, Esq. BREAUD & MEYERS, APLC 600 Jefferson Street, Suite 1101 Lafayette, LA 70501 Tel: (337) 266-2212 Email: tim@breaudlaw.com NAVY FEDERAL: Court Rejects "Munday" Class Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Josephine L. Staton denied the joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit styled RONALD MUNDAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 8:15-cv- 01629-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.). Judge Staton, however, grants leave to move again for preliminary approval should the parties reach a settlement agreement that cures the deficiencies identified in the Order. Judge Staton also ordered that by June 24, 2016, (a) the parties must file a renewed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement that cures the deficiencies or, if no motion will be filed, (b) the Defendant must file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. On October 9, 2015, Ronald Munday filed a class action complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union seeking damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief for allegedly knowing and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully placed multiple prerecorded or artificial calls to the Plaintiff and other members of the class without their prior express consent. The parties agreed to participate in mediation to resolve the action. The proposed settlement provides for a non- reversionary gross settlement fund of $2,750,000. The proposed settlement class is defined as: "all persons whom Navy Federal called on their cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") between October 9, 2011 through the date of Preliminary Approval where the result of the call was that Navy Federal coded the number as a 'wrong number' in its records based on information provided by the call recipient." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AVRoXDGF NCB MANAGEMENT: Status Hearing in "Kaleel" Set for July 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 26, 2016, in the case styled Elizabeth J. Kaleel v. NCB Management Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-05566 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman. The minute entry states that: -- the Plaintiff's Motion to Enter and Continue Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted; -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is taken under advisement; -- the Motion hearings set for June 9, 2016, are stricken and no appearance is required; -- the Court orders the parties to appear for an initial status hearing; -- the Court directs all parties to refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in his case management procedures, which can be found at: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ -- status hearing is set for July 11, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2W0IOtdW NEW WAY MINI: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Mendoza, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. New Way Mini Market Inc., (d/b/a New Way Mini Market), Delio Suriel Fernandez, Rafael Suriel Fernandez, Frank Suriel Fernandez, and Shari Doe, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02471 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendants as a sandwich maker/breakfast cook. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation. New Way is a market located at Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com NONGSHIM CO: Certification of Direct Purchasers Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ The direct purchaser plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, Case No. Case No. 13-cv-04115-WHO (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify this class: All persons and entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Korean Noodles directly from Defendants Nong Shim Co., Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc., Ottogi Co., Ltd., or Ottogi America, Inc. at any time from April 1, 2003 through January 31, 2010. The Class excludes the Defendants Samyang Foods Co., Ltd., Samyang (USA), Inc., Korea Yakult, Co., Ltd., Paldo Co., Ltd. and any of their current or former parents, subsidiaries or affiliates. The Class also excludes all judicial officers presiding over this action and their immediate family members and staff, and any juror assigned to this action. The DPPs contend that the evidence developed in the Case supports class certification because it demonstrates that there was a long- running conspiracy by Defendants Nongshim Co., Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc., Ottogi Co., Ltd., or Ottogi America, Inc. and their co-conspirators to fix prices for Korean Ramen Noodle Products commencing in late 2000 or early 2001 and lasting through at least June 3, 2008. A hearing will be held on November 16, 2016, at 2 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPBuq0RX Information on the case is available at http://www.ramenclassaction.com/ Gilardi & Co. serves as claims administrator. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Stephanie Cho, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com scho@hausfeld.com - and - Michael Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650 Washington D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com mgoldberg@glancylaw.com NORI O INC: "Goh" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------- Jit Shi Goh, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. NORI O INC. d/b/a Sushi O, Otaya Sushi II INC. d/b/a Sushi O, Peng L. Tam a/k/a Alan Tam, Yuk Yen Chai a/k/a Ivy Chai and Yuk Wing Chai Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02811-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., May 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Goh was employed by Defendants to work as a chef at Sushi O located at 691 US Highway 1, Unit 4, Edison, NJ 08817. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Franco LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C. 42 Broadway, Suite 12-126 New York, NY 10004 Tel: 1800-933-5620 - and - John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: 718) 762-1324 Fax: (718) 762-1342 NORTH DAKOTA: EEE Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. N. Dak. ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against the state of North Dakota. The case is captioned EEE Minerals, LLC, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Suzanne Vohs individually and as Trustee for The Vohs Family Revocable Living Trust, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Zoe Koller and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and James Messler as Trustee of the James and Carolyn Messler Living Trust, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. State of North Dakota; The Board of University and School Lands of the State of North Dakota; Continental Resources, Inc.; Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC; Statoil Oil & Gas LP; W.D. Anderson & Sons; and Basin Petroleum Services, Inc., et. al., the Defendants, Case No. 27-02014-CV- 00282. The case was removed from McKenzie County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Dakota. The Western District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00115-DLH-CSM to the proceeding. The Assigned Judge is Hon. Daniel L. Hovland. North Dakota is a Midwestern U.S. state dominated by the Great Plains. Its eastern city of Fargo showcases Native American and modern art at the Plains Art Museum. The Plaintiffs appear pros se. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Perez" Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is captioned Margaret Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02743-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael A. Shipp. Northstar is a collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com NYC TAXI & LIMOUSINE: Nnebe Asks 2nd Circuit to Review Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jonathan Nnebe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Nnebe v. Daus, et al., Case No. 06-cv-4991, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The lawsuit alleges that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission's policy of suspending taxi drivers upon notification of their arrest violates the United States Constitution, New York state law, and New York City municipal law. The appellate case is captioned as Nnebe v. Daus, et al., Case No. 16-1673, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Daniel L. Ackman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL L. ACKMAN 12 Desbrosses Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (917) 282-8178 Facsimile: (888) 290-3481 E-mail: dan@danackmanlaw.com The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION: Can Arbitrate Claims in "Stewart" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Vanessa D. Gilmore granted in part only as to opt-in plaintiffs James Earl Stewart, Jose I. Hernandez, and Mark Andre Mendoza, the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of certain Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis and dismiss or stay the action, in part, pending arbitration, and stay discovery, in part, until their motion is ruled on in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT WHITE, JR., WILLIAM "BILLY" STUCKEY, and DEMETRICE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ZACHARY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Case No. 4:15-cv-02947 (S.D. Tex.). In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants required them to manually record their daily work hours, and would pay them a "fixed salary" for the first 40 hours of work per week. The Plaintiffs allege that they receive no additional pay for any hours worked in excess of 40 per week unless they worked in excess of 50 hours per week -- in Defendants' attempt to incentivize employees to work longer hours. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs James Earl Stewart, Jose I. Hernandez, and Mark Andre Mendoza's claims are dismissed and those Plaintiffs are compelled to attend arbitration. The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is granted in part for "all individuals, excluding James Earl Stewart, Jose I. Hernandez, and Mark Andre Mendoza, who, at any point during the past three (3) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, worked for Defendants as "working Foremen" on the construction of the freeway project known as 'SH99 Grand Parkway' segments F-l, F-2, G-A, and G-B." According to the Order, the Plaintiffs' proposed notice will be modified according to the Court's instructions. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8yvu66eH ORLEANS SHORING: Certification of Class Sought in "Nunez" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned WILSON NUNEZ and LUIS MEJIA, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. ORLEANS SHORING, LLC, SANTICIMA TRINIDAD, LLC, LA DIVINA MISERICORDIA, LLC and ANTONIO NUNEZ and ANTONIO NUNEZ REYES, Case No. 2:16-cv-03005-CJB-KWR (E.D. La.), move for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs. The Action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AqSR5ppM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. THE COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com - and - William H. Beaumont, Esq. WILLIAM BEAUMONT LAW 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com P.F. CHANG'S: Plaintiff's Counsel Got OK to Appear Via Telephone ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANNA MARIE PHILLIPS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., an Arizona corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-00344 (RMW), District Judge Ronald M. Whyte permitted counsel for the Plaintiff to appear via telephone for the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, which was scheduled for June 3, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel for Plaintiff is located in Los Angeles. Counsel is instructed to contact CourtCall at (866) 582-6878 to arrange telephonic appearance. A copy of the ruling is available at https://is.gd/QTCEYG from Leagle.com. PAC-12 CONFERENCE: "Cook" Sues Over Football Health Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Lee Cook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PAC-12 Conference, and The National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02630-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2016) seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney's fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to warn collegiate players of the health hazards of playing football. Pac-12 Conference, Athletic Association of Western Universities, is a collegiate athletic conference with its principal office located at 360 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, California 94107. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Logan, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian* EDELSON PC 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: tlogan@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: 844.456.4823 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com - and - John Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 211 North Broadway, 40th Floor St. Louis, MO 63102 Tel: 314.932.3232 Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com PASON SYSTEMS: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Ratliff" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Donny Ratliff and four opt-in Plaintiffs Jared Hauff, Chris Nash, Travis McLemore, and Tommy Fleming, file a motion for conditional certification asking the Court to authorize notice of the lawsuit titled DONNY RATLIFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PASON SYSTEMS USA CORP., Case No. 4:15-cv-02376 (S.D. Tex.), to the all Field Service and Sales Technicians employed by the Defendant within the past three years, and conditionally certify the case for purposes of discovery and trial. The Plaintiff alleges that Pason: * paid each Putative Class Member a salary and job bonus -- without overtime compensation; * worked the Putative Class Members in excess of 40 hours a week; and * required all Putative Class Members to perform similar job duties. The Plaintiff contends that Pason's uniform treatment of all Putative Class Members as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the fact that numerous individuals have joined this Case provide the Court ample support to conditionally certify this case under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UHo1rS1V The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PASQUALE'S ENTERPRISE: "Jackson" Suit to Recover OT Pay, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyisha Jackson, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pasquale's Enterprise Inc., Michael Marrone, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80778-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, back wages, damages sustained from emotional distress, humiliation and pain and suffering, attorney's fees, costs and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jackson worked for the Defendants as a cook. She claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff was allegedly terminated for asserting claims for overtime wages. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Markel, Esq. THE MARKEL LAW FIRM 777 Brickell Avenue Suite 500 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 458-1282 Fax: (800)-407-1718 Email: David.Markel@markel-law.com PEARL LOUNGE: "Griffith" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Jade Griffith, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Pearl Lounge Inc. d/b/a Foxy Club; Nadejda Fedorova; and/or any other related corporate entities, the Defendants, Case No. 508037/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained tips, and improperly withheld wages, under the New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as dancers and/or entertainers and did not receive their statutorily mandated wages, were not compensated with all tips, and were subject to illegal deductions from their wages. Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment under the name "Foxy Club". The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Markowitz, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 PENNSYLVANIA: Class Certification Sought in "Stradford" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LACEY STRADFORD, WILLIAM NETTLES, JESSE STROUD and WILLIAM SCOTT on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JOHN WETZEL, Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 2:16-cv-02064-JS (E.D. Pa.), ask the Court to certify this class on claims for declaratory and injunctive relief: All persons who are now and in the future incarcerated in a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") facility with a sex offense classification who have been approved for parole but who cannot obtain their release from this incarceration due to the restriction on their placement into a DOC operated or contracted halfway house until two years prior to reaching their maximum term. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UtTJzGQn The Plaintiffs are represented by: Su Ming Yeh, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 718 Arch Street, Suite 304S Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-2966 E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org - and - Donald Driscoll, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Pittsburgh PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 434-6002 E-mail: ddriscoll@cjplaw.org - and - Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Pittsburgh PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 434-6175 E-mail: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Juan Francisco Gonzalez Nieves, as Trustee of the Gonzalez Coronado Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Performance Sports Group Ltd. (PSG), Kevin Davis, Mark Vendetti, and Amir Rosenthal, the Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-03591 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; made various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. PSG designs, manufactures, and markets performance sports equipment and related apparel for hockey, baseball, softball, and lacrosse. The Company owns the brands Bauer, Mission, Cascade, Inaria, Combat, and Easton. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP 60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697 6484 Facsimile: (212) 697 7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com PACIFIC COAST: Settlement in "Welch" & "Berliner" Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Trust expects the settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit to be finalized during the second quarter of 2016. On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, a privately held Delaware partnership ("PCEC"), PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action. On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the consolidated action. The Trust expects the settlement agreement to be finalized during the second quarter of 2016. The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the consolidated action. PAPA MURPHY'S: Defending "Lennartson" Class Action in Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2016, 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 the Company failed to comply with the requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when it sent SMS text messages to consumers. 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. The Company believes the plaintiff's interpretation of the law is incorrect and it will continue to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit, but provide no assurance that it will be successful. An adverse judgment or settlement related to this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks Decertification in CBNV Mortgage Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has filed a motion for decertification in the CBNV Mortgage Litigation. The Company said, "Our petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the matter currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674) was denied in February 2016. We filed motions for decertification and summary judgment with the district court in April 2016." PROCTER & GAMBLE: Aug. 11 Case Management Conference in "Johnson" ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ruled that a Case Management Conference will be held on August 11, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, in the case, GREGORY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-02302-PJH (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the court's Order dated May 27 is available at https://is.gd/uaiccY from Leagle.com. Gregory Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan S Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & Linh G. Vuong, Girard Gibbs LLP. The Procter & Gamble Co., Defendant, represented by Eric J. Knapp -- eric.knapp@squirepb.com -- at Squire Patton Boggs LLP. QUALITY ALUMINUM: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- Marilu Gonzales, an individual, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quality Aluminum Forge, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; SIFCO Industries, Inc., an Ohio corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC620489 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover all wages earned and due, interest, penalties, expenses, and costs of suit, under the Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide meal period, additional hour of compensation at each employee's regular rate of pay for each workday that a meal period was not provided, and failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked during their meal periods. Quality Aluminum engages in the design, tooling, and production of precision aluminum forging products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Amanda S. Naoufal, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531 1900 Facsimile: (310) 531 1901 E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com QUARRY HILL: Faces "Baldwin" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Quarry Hill Associates Inc. The case is captioned Patricia Baldwin, on behalf of herself and all others in similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quarry Hill Associates Inc., doing Business as Tavern at Quarry Hills & Granite Links Golf Club, the Defendant, Case No. 1682CV00625 (Mass. Super. Ct., May 12, 2016). Granite Links is an award-winning private membership club that also allows some non-member access, welcoming visitors to play the course, use the range, dine in its public restaurants and host events in its assorted function venues. The club provides other areas that are exclusively for Members only, including a separate private Grille Room, Card Room, Fitness Room, Locker Rooms, Grass Driving Range and Short Game Practice Complex. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: info@llrlaw.com RDB CONTRACTING: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Medina, individually and on behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RDB Contracting Inc., RLB Construction, Inc., Jerry Burke, Ricky D. Burke and Connie Burke, individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00472 (W.D. Tex., May 23, 2016) seeks unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, costs of this action, attorney's fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants provide construction services, where Plaintiff was employed as a general laborer. Medina was mislabelled as an independent contractor thus denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.Derek Braziel Jay Forester LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 RIVER GREENE: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Luis Anderson and Luis Alvarez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. River Greene Construction Group, LLC d/b/a River Greene Construction Group and John Does 1-25, said names being fictitious, being the persons or entities in control of Defendant River Greene Construction Group, LLC Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03684 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid earned wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Anderson and Alvarez worked at River Greene Construction as a construction worker and painter, respectively. River Greene Construction Group, LLC is a construction company based in New York, New York, specializing in interior construction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com RYDAL SQUARE: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn. ----------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Rydal Square, LP. The case is captioned Jessica Slivak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rydal Square, LP, and Rydal Square, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. #: 2:16-cv-02335-NIQA (E.D. Penn., May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Nitza I Quinones Alejandro. RYDAL is in the Investors, N.E.C. industry in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com SARAVIA TOWING: "Castillo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Ramiro Castillo, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Saravia Towing, Inc. and Manuel Saravia Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-21768-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid wages owed, an equal amount in liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Castillo worked for the Defendants as a tow truck driver. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Markel, Esq. THE MARKEL LAW FIRM 777 Brickell Avenue Suite 500 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 458-1282 Fax: (800)-407-1718 Email: David.Markel@markel-law.com SARATOGA DATA: Aug. 11 Case Mgmt. Conference in Knight Foster Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ruled that a Case Management Conference will be held on August 11, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, in the case, W. KNIGHT FOSTER PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, v. SARATOGA DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16- cv-02406-PJH (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the court's Order dated May 27 is available at https://is.gd/imBzE5 from Leagle.com. W. Knight Foster Partnership, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin L. Cleveland -- kristin.cleveland@klarquist.com -- Klarquist Sparkman LLP, Virginia Turner Hess -- vhess@ahklaw.com -- Brooks & Hess, a P.C., J. Christopher Carraway -- chris.carraway@klarquist.com -- Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Randy M. Hess -- rhess@ahklaw.com -- Adleson, Hess & Kelly, APC & Jeffrey Stewart Love -- jeffrey.love@klarquist.com -- Klarquist Sparkman, LLP. SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: English Learners Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court to permit the matter captioned LESLY METHELUS, on behalf of Y.M., a minor; ROSALBA ORTIZ, on behalf of G.O., a minor; ZOILA LORENZO, on behalf of M.D., a minor; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA and KAMELA PATTON, Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools, in her official capacity, Case No. 2:16-cv-00379-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), to proceed as a class action under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Should the Court determine that the record has not yet been sufficiently developed to support the Motion, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court defer resolution of the Motion pending class discovery in accordance with Local Rule 4.04(c) and set a hearing on the matter. The Plaintiffs move for certification of a class of similarly situated students unlawfully denied enrollment in public high school to obtain class-wide remedies for all those affected. The Action is brought on behalf of three English Language Learner children, who were allegedly unlawfully denied equal access to educational opportunities as a result of the Defendants' policy and practice to exclude them from enrollment in public high school at or around the age of 16. The Defendants allegedly instead funneled the children to an adult, non-credit, English language- only program that charges a fee. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=acN0YNiZ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tania Galloni, Esq. Jessica Zagier Wallace, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 4770 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (786) 347-2056 Facsimile: (786) 237-2949 E-mail: Tania.Galloni@splcenter.org Jessica.Wallace@splcenter.org SCOT MURPHY: "Dones" Labor Case Transferred to M.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Dones and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff (s), v. Scot Murphy Plastering Inc. and Bobby S. Murphy, individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00340-JSM-PRL (S.D. Fla., December 30, 2015), was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 17, 2016, Case No. 0:15-cv-62723. Dones seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Scot Murphy Plastering is a general commercial contracting company that specialized in drywall installation and drywall repair. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma The Law Offices of Zandro E. Palma, PA, Suite 1500 9100 South Dadeland Blvd Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Keith Klein, Esq. Jordan Lee Richards, Esq. Law Offices of Nolan Klein, PA Ste 1500-Wells Fargo Tower One E. Broward Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1934 Tel: (305) 351-0625 Fax: (877) 253-1691 Email: klein@nklegal.com richards@nklegal.com SELECT EXPRESS: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Lazaro Martin, Lazaro Gonzalez, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Select Express & Logistics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21800-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a courier service and is in the business commercial product delivery in the State of Florida and throughout the United States where Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers. Martin and Gonzalez claim to have been denied overtime pay for off-the-clock work. The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307 Miami, FL 33135 Phone: (786) 441-8909 Facsimile: (786) 523-0610 E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com SOUTH UNIVERSITY: "Hendricks" Sues Over Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. South University, Does 1- 10, inclusive Defendant, Case No. 1:16-at-00367 (E.D. Cal., May 19, 2016) seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. South University is an educational institution who attempted to contact Plaintiff on her cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to solicit its services without prior express consent. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SOUTHERN CABLE: "Wallace" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy A. Wallace, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Southern Cable Systems, L.L.C.; and Jerry Russell Tyler, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv- 00209-RV-CJK (N.D. Fla., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff, and those others similarly situated, worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week without overtime compensation. However, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and those others similarly situated, for all overtime hours actually worked at a rate of one and one half times the employee's regular hourly rate. Southern Cable is a Cable T.V. subcontracting company based in Birmingham, Alabama, specializing in installations and direct sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq. Tyler L. Gray, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A. 900 East Moreno Street Pensacola, FL 32503 Telephone: (850) 437 9600 Facsimile: (850) 437 0906 E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com SOVRAN SELF: To Defend Against Class Action in Burlington, N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Sovran Self Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to defend against a class action lawsuit filed in Burlington County, New Jersey. On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance Producer Licensing Act. On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's motion was granted in part and denied in part. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, and the possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be determined at this time. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: July 14 Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions ----------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the deadline for filing and scheduling dispositive motions is July 14, 2016, in the December 2012 Securities Litigation. On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint, which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported class period. On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims and sought similar relief. In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or misleading representations made during the class period extending from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012. In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting the motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount of compensation in the second amended complaint. The Court granted class certification on December 22, 2015. Fact discovery closed December 18, 2015, and the deadline for filing and scheduling dispositive motions is July 14, 2016. The case is expected to be ready for trial in February 2017. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this matter. The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with the December 2012 Securities Litigation because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable. Because, based on the Company's historical experience, the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to the amount claimed, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. SUNTRUST BANKS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in "Brown" --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a consolidated amended complaint has been filed in the case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al. On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014. On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments. After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Felix" Class Action Over FHA Loan Interest ----------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the putative class action, Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., was filed against STM on April 4, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract with borrowers when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment because STM fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff also alleges that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by collecting such interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach of contract claim on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim on behalf of Georgia borrowers. STM has not yet responded to the allegations but will defend itself against these allegations. TARGET CORP: Police Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ Police Retirement System of St. Louis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, Gregg W. Steinhafel and John J. Mulligan, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-01315 (D. Minn., May 17, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for violation of the federal securities laws. Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation currently operating general merchandise discount stores throughout the U.S. Steinhafel and Mulligan served as CEO and CFO of Target respectively. Plaintiffs allege that Target failed to disclose details regarding its entry into the Canadian market when Target agreed to purchase leasehold interests in as many as 220 retail sites from Zellers, Inc. Canadian operations encountered problems and began to underperform investor expectations. Target revealed the Company would discontinue its Canadian operations and that Target Canada Co. had filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada. In response to this news, Target stock declined $1.63 per share, or 2.1 percent. St. Louis Police Retirement System purchased the publicly-traded common stock of Target at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially. The Plaintiff is represented by: June P. Hoidal, Esq. Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. June P. Hoidal, Esq. Kirsten D. Hedberg, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: Carolyn.Anderson@zimmreed.com June.Hoidal@zimmreed.com Kirsten.Hedberg@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 Email: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Evan J. Kaufman, Esq. Andrew L. Schwartz, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com aschwartz@rgrdlaw.com TD BANK: Faces "Buff" Suit in E.D. Penn. ---------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against TD Bank, N.A. The case is captioned Giovanni Buff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02357-JD (E.D. Penn., May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Jan E. Dubois. TD Bank is a United States national bank chartered and supervised by the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. Denittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PC 525 Route 73 N Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053-3422 E-mail: sdenittis@shabeldenittis.com TD BANK: "Krulan" Sues Over Short-changing ------------------------------------------ Christine Krulan, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02919-JBS-JS (D.N.J., May 23, 2016), seeks actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, common law damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable relief, including restitution, injunctive relief, conversion and disgorgement of profits, and all other relief available resulting from fraudulent concealment/nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of unilateral contract and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. Krulan deposited loose change in the Penny Arcade coin counting machine operated by TD Bank and was short-changed. TD Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with principal place of business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: 973-618-0400 Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com - and - Joseph Santoli, Esq. 340 Devon Court Ridgewood, NJ 07450-1810 Tel: 201-926-9200 Email: josephsantoli@aol.com TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Actions Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in January and March 2016, securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its chief executive officer, its former chief operating officer and its former chief financial officer, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. "Each complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common stock between March 5, 2015 and September 8, 2015, and alleges claims arising under Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended," the Company said. "Each complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE2. Each complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, and costs. We believe we have valid defenses against these claims, and will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation." Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that was incorporated in Delaware on July 7, 2006 and has a principal place of business in Watertown, Massachusetts. The Company is using its proprietary chemistry technology to create novel antibiotics for serious and life- threatening multidrug-resistant infections. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in "Hayman" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Hayman moves to certify the action styled LORI HAYMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01152-HB (E.D. Pa.), as a class action and appoint her as class representative. For her claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Plaintiff seeks certification of this Class: All persons with addresses within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who, beginning one year prior to the filing of this action through and including the final resolution of this case, were sent one or more letter(s) from Defendant attempting to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to DIRECTV which disclosed a bar code visible through the window of the envelope that when read or scanned, revealed the account number, reference number, registration code or other unique identification number associated by Defendant with the person's account. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Muu4PY0W The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. David A. Searles, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, Suite 1902 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com TRINET GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of "Welgus" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to move to dismiss the amended complaint in the Welgus class action no later than June 20, 2016. On or about August 7, 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case has not been certified as a class action, although it purports to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive. The name of the case is Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03625. No stockholder other than Mr. Welgus submitted a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff to represent the putative class, and, on December 3, 2015, the Court appointed Mr. Welgus as lead plaintiff. On February 1, 2016, Mr. Welgus filed an amended complaint. The defendants named in the case are the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as well as General Atlantic, LLC, a significant shareholder, and formerly majority shareholder, of the Company. Shortly before the scheduled date for the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, Mr. Welgus sought leave to further amend the consolidated complaint. The amended complaint was deemed filed by Mr. Welgus on April 1, 2016. The amended complaint expanded the class period to March 27, 2014 through February 29, 2016, and added as defendants the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and additional directors of the Company. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company and other defendants caused damage to purchasers of the Company's stock by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose facts generally pertaining to alleged trends affecting health insurance and workers compensation claims. Under a stipulated revised briefing schedule approved by the Court, the Company intends to move to dismiss the amended complaint no later than June 20, 2016. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against this action and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against the allegations of Mr. Welgus. TriNet Group, Inc. (the Company or TriNet), a Delaware corporation incorporated in January 2000, provides comprehensive human resources, or HR, solutions for small to midsize businesses, or SMBs, across a number of industries under a co-employment model. TUBULAR SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Granted in "Ducote" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kenneth M. Hoyt granted a joint motion for conditional certification filed in the lawsuit titled RICKY DUCOTE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. TUBULAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-2557 (S.D. Tex.). Judge Hoyt also approves the class notice and consent form and the e-mail language to accompany the notice packet, which were attached to the Agreed Motion. The Court also set certain schedules, including directing the Defendant to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel, within 10 days, information regarding all field service employees, who performed services for TSI during the last three years to present. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=32nKtgzT UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Johnson" Sues Over Unsolicited Texts -------------------------------------------------------- Charles Christopher Johnson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant., Case No. 1:16- cv-05468 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2016), seeks statutory and treble damages, injunction, attorney's fees and costs and all other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Johnson accuses Uber Technologies, Inc. of sending unsolicited text messages to his wireless/cellular telephones without prior express written consent. Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-658-5500 Fax: 312-658-5555 UNITED RECOVERY: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Hurt" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Geraldine Hurt asks the Court to enter an order determining that this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action, captioned GERALDINE HURT, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LP, and URS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv- 05641 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants. Ms. Geraldine Hurt seeks the certification of a class defined as: (a) all individuals with addresses in Illinois (b) to whom defendant sent a letter stating that URS' client will "report forgiveness of debt as required by IRS regulations" (c) which letter was sent at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qUz4LVxO The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com UNITED STATES: Asks 10th Cir. to Review Ruling in "Fletcher" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Government, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Fletcher, et al. v. United States, et al., Case No. 4:02-CV-00427-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla.). The lawsuit arose from claims of civil rights violations. The Plaintiffs-Appellees are Charles A. Pratt, individually, and as member of the Osage Development Council, Juanita W. West, Cora Jean Jech and Betty Woody. The Defendants-Appellants are Bureau of Indian Affairs; United States of America; Department of Interior; Sally Jewell, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; and Larry Roberts, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior. The appellate case is captioned as Fletcher, et al. v. United States, et al., Case No. 16-5058, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by: Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq. Dallas Lynn Dale Strimple, Esq. INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PLLC 1723 South Boston Avenue Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 347-6169 E-mail: jason-aamodt@utulsa.edu - and - Krystina E. Phillips, Esq. INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PLLC 218 East 12th Street Ada, OK 74820 Telephone: (580) 453-7051 - and - James David Jorgenson, Esq. Mark Alston Waller, Esq. WALLER JORGENSON WARZYNSKI PLLC 401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 500 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 933-4288 - and - Evan M. McLemore, Esq. G. Steven Stidham, Esq. LEVINSON, SMITH & HUFFMAN, P.C. 1743 East 71st Street Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 492-4433 E-mail: evan.mclemore@lsh-law-firm.com - and - Amanda Sue Proctor, Esq. SHIELD LAW GROUP PLC 1723 South Boston Avenue Tulsa, OK 741119 Telephone: (800) 655-4820 Facsimile: (800) 619-2107 E-mail: aproctor@shield-law.com The Defendants-Appellants are represented by: Jeffrey Andrew Gallant, Esq. Cathryn Dawn McClanahan, Esq. Thomas Scott Woodward, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 110 West 7th Street, Suite 300 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 382-2700 E-mail: jeff.gallant@usdoj.gov cathy.mcclanahan@usdoj.gov - and - Joseph H. Kim, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044-7611 Telephone: (202) 514-2748 E-mail: joseph.kim@usdoj.gov - and - John H. Martin, III, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 999 18th Street South Terrace, Suite 370 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 844-1383 Facsimile: (303) 844-1350 E-mail: john.h.martin@usdoj.gov US ASSOC OF CDC: "Brown" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ George P. Brown and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Association of CDC, Inc., WC WH LLC, OSER Venture Inc., George Howard and Peter Burgess, Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-21807-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016) seeks punitive damages with court costs, interest and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a security guard and general laborer, claiming to have not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alberto Naranjo, Esq. AN LAW FIRM, P.A. 1900 N. Bayshore Dr. #3606 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-942-8070 Email: AN@ANLawFirm.com USF REDDAWAY: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo I. Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. USF ReddaWay, Inc., a Oregon Corporation, and Does 1- 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC620439 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime, unpaid rest and meal period compensation, unreimbursed expenses, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and Costs, under the Labor Code. According to complaint, the Defendants consistently maintained and enforced against USF Non-Exempt Drivers, among others, the following unlawful practices and policies, in violation of California state wage and hour laws: A) failing to pay wages including accurate overtime rates; B) failing to provide meal and rest periods; C) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; D) failing to keep and maintain accurate time records; E) failing to timely pay wages; F) failing to reimburse expenses; and G) failing to maintain accurate itemized wage statements. The USF ReddaWay is engaged in the ownership and operation of a trucking and logistics company in Los Angeles County and throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R Hawkins, Esq. Gregory E. Mauro, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387 7200 Facsimile: (949) 387 6676 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com GREG@MAUROLAWFIRM.NET UTZ QUALITY FOODS: "Hashtpari" Sues Over False Labelling -------------------------------------------------------- Cyrus Hashtpari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-03453 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2016) seeks damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other remedies resulting from common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution and violation of California Civil Code and California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of claiming that their product, Dirty Potato Chips, as all natural despite the presence of synthetic ingredients and preservatives. Utz Quality Foods, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Hanover, Pennsylvania. Defendant manufactures, labels, distributes, sells, and advertises Dirty Potato Chips products nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com bheikali@faruqilaw.com VULCAN MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Texas Brine Case ------------------------------------------------------- Vulcan Materials Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in the litigation related to the Texas brine matter. During the operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was the lessee to a salt lease from 1976 - 2005 in an underground salt dome formation in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The Texas Brine Company (Texas Brine) operated this salt mine for the account of Vulcan. Vulcan sold its Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned the lease to the purchaser, and Vulcan has had no association with the leased premises or Texas Brine since that time. In August 2012, a sinkhole developed near the salt dome and numerous lawsuits were filed in state court in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation, were also filed in August 2012 in federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. There are numerous defendants to the litigation in state and federal court. Vulcan was first brought into the litigation as a third-party defendant in August 2013 by Texas Brine. Vulcan has since been added as a direct and third-party defendant by other parties, including a direct claim by the state of Louisiana. The damages alleged in the litigation range from individual plaintiffs' claims for property damage, to the state of Louisiana's claim for response costs, to claims for physical damages to oil pipelines, to business interruption claims. In addition to the plaintiffs' claims, Vulcan has also been sued for contractual indemnity and comparative fault by both Texas Brine and Occidental Chemical Co. (Occidental). The total amount of damages claimed is in excess of $500 million. It is alleged that the sinkhole was caused, in whole or in part, by Vulcan's negligent actions or failure to act. It is also alleged that Vulcan breached the salt lease, as well as an operating agreement and a drilling agreement with Texas Brine; that Vulcan is strictly liable for certain property damages in its capacity as a former assignee of the salt lease; and that Vulcan violated certain covenants and conditions in the agreement under which it sold its Chemicals Division in 2005. Vulcan has made claims for contractual indemnity, comparative fault, and breach of contract against Texas Brine, as well as claims for contractual indemnity and comparative fault against Occidental. Discovery is ongoing and the first trial date in any of these cases has been set for March 2017. VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Calif. for Unfair Competition ---------------------------------------------------------- TONI-ANN Quagllariello, an individual, on behalf of herself, on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Victory Entertainment, Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1- 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC620273 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks declaratory relief holding that Defendant's policies and practices constitute unfair competition, along with incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to remedy the conduct declared to constitute unfair competition. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take proper steps to determine whether the Plaintiff was properly classified as independent contractors, and thus denied wages and payments for business expenses and employer's share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance as required by law. The Defendant maintains ownership, recruitment, management and/or operational interests in at least one nightclub featuring exotic dancing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nonnan B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK FILED 2255 Calle Clara IA La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com VINNY LOVATO'S: "Carmona" Sues Over Racial Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Carmona, Plaintiff, v. Vinny Lovato's Landscaping, Angel's Landscaping, Vinny Lovato's Landscaping t/a and/or d/b/a Angel's Landscaping, Angel's Landscaping t/a and/or d/b/a Vinny Lovato's Landscaping, Vinny Lovato, Julio "Doe" and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Defendants, Case No. L-001785-16 (N.J. Super., May 16, 2016) seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorney fees, equitable back pay, equitable front pay, equitable reinstatement and any other relief pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Carmona was allegedly subjected to racial discrimination in the workplace. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: (856) 727-9700 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gonzales" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672 ---------------------------------------------------------- Sofia Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Volkswagen A.G., Case No. 1:16-cv-04268, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv- 02599-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 "Gonsalez" case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Allen Smith, Esq. Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq. POWER ROGERS AND SMITH, PC 70 W. Madison Street, 55th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236 9381 Facsimile: (312) 236 0920 E-mail: tsmith@prslaw.com cdaley@prslaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Vondrak" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672 --------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Vondrak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., and Volkswagen A.G., the Defendants, Case no. 1:16-cv-04369, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02600-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 "Vondrak" case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq. POWER ROGERS & SMITH, PC 70 W. Madison St., 55th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236 9381 E-mail: cdaley@prslaw.com WAKEFERN FOOD: "Hilger" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Julia Hilger, Plaintiff, v. Wakefern Food Corp., d/b/a Shoprite of Pennington, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02841-AET-TJB (D.N.J., May 18, 2016) seeks compensation for all hours due, overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendant owns and/or maintains a retail cooperative in the United States, with more than 250 stores in the State of New Jersey. Wakefern is headquartered in Keasbey, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Hilger was employed by Defendants full time as a worker in the Fish Department and did not receive overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esquire JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration of Debt Card Transaction Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a series of putative class actions have been filed against Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. There are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank (including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings (the "MDL proceedings") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative plaintiffs and Wells Fargo has moved to compel arbitration of the claims of unnamed class members. WILMINGTON TRUST: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Halldorson" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Andrew Halldorson filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit entitled Andrew Halldorson v. Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01494-LMB-IDD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. Mr. Halldorson, on behalf of the Constellis Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Defendant had engaged in a prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by permitting the Employee Stock Ownership Plan to purchase Constellis Group, Inc.'s stock. The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Halldorson v. Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company, Case No. 16- 1587, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Athanasios Basdekis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-0000 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: tbasdekis@baileyglasser.com - and - Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com gporter@baileyglasser.com Defendant-Appellee Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company is represented by: Sarah Aiman Belger, Esq. John Edward Thomas, Jr., Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 1750 Tysons Boulevard Tysons Corner, VA 22102-3915 Telephone: (703) 712-5350 Facsimile: (703) 712-5299 E-mail: sbelger@mcguirewoods.com jethomas@mcguirewoods.com - and - James Patrick McElligott, Jr., Esq. Summer Speight, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219-3916 Telephone: (804) 775-4329 Facsimile: (804) 698-2111 E-mail: jmcelligott@mcguirewoods.com sspeight@mcguirewoods.com WORLDPAY US: "Mayumba" Suit Contests Non-Compliance Fees -------------------------------------------------------- Mayumba, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Worldpay US, Inc., RBS Citizens, N.A. and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC620608 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2016), seeks damages, restitution, enjoinment, reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief resulting from unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business practices under the California Business and Professions Code. Mayumba, Inc. operates Mayumba Cuban Restaurant. Plaintiff contests the charging of non-compliance fees by the Defendants under their contract or applicable law. WorldPay is a Georgia corporation with offices located at 600 Morgan Falls Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30350. RBS is a federally chartered financial institution with its principal place of business located at One Citizens Plaza, Providence, Rhode Island 02903. Both are in the business of processing credit card transactions for merchants who accept credit card payments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele L. Jackson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHELE L. JACKSON 19200 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400 Irvine, California 92612 Tel: (949) 622-5595 Fax: (949) 622-5598 Email: mjackson@michelejacksonlaw.com - and - Gretchen Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 300 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (424) 456-3183 Email: gretchen@gcarpenterlaw.com WRIGHT MEDICAL: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Hip Implant Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company has filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant, in some cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design, manufacture, or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement products rendered the products defective. The lawsuits generally employ similar allegations that use of the products resulted in excessive metal ions and particulate in the patients into whom the devices were implanted, in most cases resulting in revision surgery (collectively, the CONSERVE(R) Claims). We anticipate that additional lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip replacement products may be brought." "Because of the similar nature of the allegations made by several plaintiffs whose cases were pending in federal courts, upon motion of one plaintiff, Danny L. James, Sr., the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2012 transferred certain actions pending in the federal court system related to metal-on-metal hip replacement products to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for consolidated pre-trial management of the cases before a single United States District Court Judge (the MDL). The consolidated matter is known as In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. "Certain plaintiffs have elected to file their lawsuits in state courts in California. In doing so, most of those plaintiffs have named a surgeon involved in the design of the allegedly defective products as a defendant in the actions, along with his personal corporation. Pursuant to contractual obligations, we have agreed to indemnify and defend the surgeon in those actions. Similar to the MDL proceeding in federal court, because the lawsuits generally employ similar allegations, certain of those pending lawsuits in California were consolidated for pre-trial handling on May 14, 2012 pursuant to procedures of California State Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (the JCCP). The consolidated matter is known as In re: Wright Hip Systems Cases, Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4710. "There are other individual lawsuits related to metal-on-metal hip products pending in various state courts. As of May 2, 2016, there were 1,156 such lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 22 cases pending in various state courts. We have also entered into 889 so-called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. There are also 32 non-U.S. lawsuits presently pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. While continuing to dispute liability, we have participated in court supervised non-binding mediation in the multi-district federal court litigation and expect to begin similar mediation in the JCCP. "The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015, we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages awarded. "On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million, but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. "In light of the trial judge's April 5th order, we recorded an accrual for this verdict in the amount of $2 million within "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities," and a $2 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from product liability insurance is reflected within "Other current assets." "The supervising judge in the JCCP had set a trial date of March 14, 2016 for the first bellwether trial in California. Prior to commencement of the trial, we entered into a confidential settlement with the plaintiff which was paid by our insurance carrier. We do not consider the settlement amount to be material." WRIGHT MEDICAL: 82 Pending Lawsuits Related to Profemur ------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company has received claims for personal injury against the Company associated with fractures of its PROFEMUR(R) long titanium modular neck product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims). As of May 2, 2016, there were 38 pending U.S. lawsuits and 44 pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims. WRIGHT MEDICAL: Delaware Chancery Court Dismissed Merger Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Delaware Chancery Court has entered a Stipulated Order dismissing the Consolidated Delaware Action as moot related to the Wright/Tornier Merger Related Litigation. The Company said, "Beginning on November 25, 2014, purported shareholders of WMG filed a number of class action complaints (Delaware Actions) in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware (Delaware Chancery Court), many of which were later amended. The complaints and amended complaints in the Delaware Actions named as defendants WMG, Tornier, Trooper Holdings Inc. (Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub Inc. (Merger Sub) and the members of the WMG board of directors. The Delaware Actions generally asserted various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly failed to disclose material information about the merger. The Delaware Actions further alleged that WMG, Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors." "On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware Actions, specifically Paul Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB, and Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the caption In re Wright Medical Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10400-CB (Consolidated Delaware Action). A later-filed case, Michael Prince v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al., C.A. No. 10829-CB, was also made part of the Consolidated Delaware Action by order dated May 22, 2015. "On April 8, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a Stipulated Order dismissing the Consolidated Delaware Action as moot, with prejudice as to Plaintiffs' claims, and without prejudice as to other members of the putative class. The court retained jurisdiction to hear any mootness fee application that plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action may choose to file, and Defendants have reserved the right to challenge any such fee application." WRIGHT MEDICAL: Tennessee Consolidated Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the stay of the Consolidated Tennessee Action has expired upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger. On November 26, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported shareholder of WMG under the caption City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An amended complaint in the action was filed on January 5, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, and the members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger. The amended complaint further alleges that Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On December 2, 2014, a separate class action complaint was filed in the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of WMG under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and the members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger. The amended complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Warburg Pincus LLC, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the Consolidated Tennessee Action; that stay expired upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger. Completion of the merger between Wright Medical Group, Inc. (legacy Wright or WMG) and Tornier N.V. (legacy Tornier) (the Wright/Tornier merger or merger) was effective October 1, 2015. ZILLOW GROUP: Delaware Consolidated Lawsuit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Delaware court has dismissed the claims brought in a consolidated lawsuit with prejudice. In August 2014, four purported class action lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs against Trulia and its directors, Zillow, and Zebra Holdco, Inc. in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of Trulia. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, however on October 7, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging substantially the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the original complaint filed in California. On October 8, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice. The other three of the purported class action lawsuits, captioned Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., were brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery. All four lawsuits allege that Trulia's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair terms. All lawsuits sought, among other things, equitable relief that would have enjoined the consummation of Zillow's proposed acquisition of Trulia and attorneys' fees and costs. The Delaware actions also sought rescission of the Merger Agreement or rescissory damages and orders directing the defendants to account for alleged damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the purported class as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. On September 24, 2014, plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed (1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter captioned In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. On October 13 and 14, 2014, the above-referenced motions were refiled under the consolidated case number. On November 14, 2014, plaintiffs again refiled their motion for a preliminary injunction challenging the proposed acquisition. On November 19, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, documenting an agreement-in-principle for the settlement of the consolidated litigation, pursuant to which Trulia agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures in a Form 8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding was filed with the Court of Chancery that same day. Thereafter, the parties negotiated and agreed to a stipulation of settlement, and after notice to the class, the Court of Chancery held a settlement hearing on September 16, 2015 where the Court requested the parties to make further submission in connection with the settlement. By an opinion dated January 22, 2016, the Court denied approval of the settlement, and on April 6, 2016, the Court dismissed the claims brought in the consolidated lawsuit with prejudice. ZILLOW GROUP: Washington Consolidated Lawsuit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has dismissed a consolidated lawsuit in Washington. The Company said, "In July 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against us and each of our directors in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in King County, alleging, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the issuance of non-voting Class C capital stock as a dividend. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the August 2015 distribution of shares of our Class C capital stock as a dividend to our Class A and Class B common shareholders was held on August 5, 2015, and the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction." "Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on September 18, 2015 naming and seeking relief from only our co- founders as defendants. On December 4, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint, and on March 28, 2016, the consolidated class action complaint was dismissed with prejudice." ZILLOW GROUP: August Trial Date Set in Class Action Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial date is scheduled for August 2016 in a class action appeal. The Company said, "In November 2014, a former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court, Central District of California, with the caption Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. The complaint alleges, among other things, claims that we failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep accurate records of employees' hours worked. After the court granted our two motions to dismiss certain claims, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We filed our answer to the second amended complaint on June 16, 2015. "On November 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. A hearing was held on February 5, 2016 regarding the motion. On February 26, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 11, 2016, we filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for permission to appeal the order granting class certification. The trial date is scheduled for August 2016. "We have recorded an accrual for an immaterial amount as of March 31, 2016 related to liabilities that may result from this class action lawsuit. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of amounts accrued may be incurred; however, any additional possible loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable at this time." ********* 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 * * *