/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160615.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 119 Headlines 3D SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending ADT LLC: Faces "Williams" Class Suit in Southern Dist. California AERO PALLETS: Faces "Rubio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMARIN CORP: Court Granted Bid to Dismiss Securities Action AMERICAN CORADIUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orzel" Suit Claims AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Fla. Over ADA Violation ARKANSAS, USA: Faces Eighth Circuit Appeal in "Wilson" Class Suit AT&T INC: Suit Challenging DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket Pending AT&T INC: Suit Related to Unlimited Data Plans Pending AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Final Judgment Approving Settlement AVON PRODUCTS: Poovathur Settlement Awaits Court Approval BARNES AND NOBLE: Faces "Hartpence" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BEARGLASS INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BETTER ALTERNATIVE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Tabor" Suit Says BLUE CROSS: Appeals Court Voids $30MM Class Action Settlement BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Rochon Genova Launches Abilify Class Action BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 5 Suits in Conn. Over Pradaxa(R) BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 5 Suits in Conn. Over Pradaxa(R) BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Range Extenders CASHCALL INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection CAVIAR INC: Levin Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Sikora" CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Masters" Suit Ongoing in San Diego CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Guglielmo" Class Action Pending in E.D.N.Y. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Brown" Suit Sent to Arbitration CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Action Ongoing in Calif. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalty Owners Suit Moved to Tarrant, Texas CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalty Owners' Suits Ongoing in Pa. and Ohio CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 3 Lawsuits Filed in Oklahoma CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Class Suit Over Senior Note Holders CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Vehicle Sunroof Defect Class Action CLARITY SERVICES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation COLOR SPOT: Faces "Olivares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CORVALLIS, OR: Bid for Class Certification in "Smith" Denied COMCAST CORPORATION: "Spencer" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania COMMUNITY LOANS: "Cox" Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay CULINART INC: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities DEDICATED FLEET: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements DEVRY EDUCATION: To Defend Against Rayter-Herendeen Suit in Cal. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Arkansas Class Suit in Early Stages EAST COAST: "Schlegel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages EMC CORPORATION: 15 Shareholder Class Actions Pending EMCORE CORP: Offered Employees One Time Cash Payment ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Sued in Delaware Over Fiduciary Duty Breach ENVOY AIR: "Schroeder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages EVENTBRITE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kubik" Suit Claims FAIRLIFE LLC: "Kremmel" Suit Removed to S. District Illinois FEDEX GROUND: "Carrow" Class Suit Removed to Dist. of New Jersey FCA US LLC: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Faltermeier" FIRSTMERIT CORP: Settles Class Action Over Huntington Merger GENERAL MILLS: Class Certification in Environmental Case Reversed GLENCORE LTD: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Antitrust Suit GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action, Aug. 24 Hearing Set GRS MANAGEMENT: "Pena" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Young" Suit in D. Ariz. HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Sued in N.C. Over Proposed Sale to Annaly HSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Pass" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Automated Calls HUNTINGTON HONDA: "Schmitt" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Law INGRAM MICRO: Faces "Scheiner" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach LAIDLAW & COMPANY: "Noel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LEGACY AIR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Bynum" Suit Claims LONE STAR: Appeals From N.D. Texas Ruling in "Campos" Class Suit M LOPEZ: Faces "Carreto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MACY'S INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Merchandise Label MAGNELL ASSOCIATE: Faces "Aceves" Class Suit in California MCLANE SUNEAST: "Fenton" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid for Class Certification in "Huebner" Denied MIDLAND FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Filgueiras" Suit Says MILWAUKEE COUNTY: "Ruehs" Suit Seeks Compensation Under FLSA MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Faces "Nemes" Suit in E.D.N.Y. NANOSPHERE INC: Sued in Illinois Over Proposed Sale to Luminex NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Evans" Class Suit Removed to Idaho Dist. Ct NEW BUFFALO CORP: Hopper Appeals From W.D. Ky. Ruling NORMANDIE CLUB: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NORTHSHORE PHYSICIAN: Faces Class Action Over Lien on HMO Fees P.F. CHANGS: Bid for Voluntary Dismissal of "Phillips" Granted PELLA CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. of "Naparala" Suit Denied PELLA CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. of "Romig" Suit Denied PERSHING LLC: "Ochoa" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Tex. PETROBRAS: Prosecutor Goes After Three Senators Tied to Scandal PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages PREMIER KINGS: Faces "Hardy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: "Graham" Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida QUALITY PLUMBING: "Kiss" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages RICK'S FRONT: "Summers" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA RIP CURL: Faces "Candelario" Class Suit in C. Dist. of California SAINT-GOBAIN: Southern NH Residents Voice Frustrations at Meeting SANDISK CORPORATION: Appeal Filed in "Giuliano" Antitrust Suit SAR CALIFORNIA: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed Cold Drinks, Suit Claims STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Thorner" Suit Says SUBARU: Class Action Settlement Expected to Be Finalized in July SWIFT PORK: "Rocha" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code TEXAS, USA: District Court Ruling in "Steward" Suit Under Appeal THERANOS INC: Sued Over Substandard Lab Policies & Procedures TOMS SHOES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge in Fraud Case Tied to La Raza Council UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal Filed in 9th Circuit in "Lainer" Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Unveils Software Improvements Amid Litigation UGI CORP: Hawkins Appeals From C.D. California Ruling in 9th Cir. UNITED STATES: Faces "Jerome" Suit in Northern District Indiana UNITED STATES: Court Rules on Bids for Joinder in "Bell" Suit UNITED STATES: Evideo Owners Appeal From Ruling in Patent Suit VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: Vehicle Emissions Class Action Underway WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Reeves" Class Suit in S.D. California WAL-MART STORES: "Smith" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California WEWORK: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices WHALENECK ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Paez" Suit Says ZACKS INVESTMENT: "Kerr" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal. ZEEBA ENTERPRISES: "Najera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ZODIAC US: Sued in California Over Failure to Provide Meal Period ********* 3D SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- 3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions and that the former officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on January 14, 2016, which motion is currently pending. ADT LLC: Faces "Williams" Class Suit in Southern Dist. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services. The case is captioned Matthew Williams, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services, Case No. 3:16-cv-01268-JAH-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 26, 2016). ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services provides residential and small business electronic security, fire protection and other related alarm monitoring services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com AERO PALLETS: Faces "Rubio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Israel Rubio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aero Pallets, Inc. and Slats and Nails Pallets, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-01278 (N.D. Ohio., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Aero Pallets, Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of Aero-Caster products, like air casters or air bearings mounted on Aero-Planks, Aero-Pallets. Slats and Nails Pallets, Inc. operates a freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from East Sparta, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201 Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com AMARIN CORP: Court Granted Bid to Dismiss Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on April 26, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss in favor of the Company and related defendants in the putative consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). The class action was dismissed without prejudice with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and related contributing factors and the potential relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that potential approval. This is the second motion to dismiss granted in favor of the Company and related defendants in this litigation. The first motion to dismiss in this litigation was granted in June 2015 in response to the original complaint and related amendment. Should plaintiffs file another amended complaint or appeal, the Company plans a vigorous defense. The Company has insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any significant loss exposure that may arise from this action. AMERICAN CORADIUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orzel" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Fraidy Orzel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Coradius International, LLC, Case No. 1:16- cv-02686 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. American Coradius International, LLC operates a debt collection firm located at 2420 Sweet Home Rd #150, Amherst, NY 14228. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Fla. Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. American Signature, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-21904-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Signature, Inc. is a furniture company based in Columbus, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 Facsimile: (786) 513-7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com ARKANSAS, USA: Faces Eighth Circuit Appeal in "Wilson" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Charles Isaac Wilson, Jr., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Charles Wilson, Jr. v. Wendy Kelley, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00248-SWW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff. The lawsuit arises from issues over prison condition. The appellate case is captioned as Charles Wilson, Jr. v. Wendy Kelley, et al., Case No. 16-2485, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Defendants-Appellees Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections, and Lindsey Williams are represented by: Charles Lyford, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 200 Catlett-Prien Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 Telephone: (501) 682-2007 E-mail: charles.lyford@arkansasag.gov AT&T INC: Suit Challenging DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- AT&T Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the litigation challenging DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket. More than two dozen putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California and the Southern District of New York against DIRECTV and the National Football League (NFL). These cases were brought by residential and commercial DIRECTV subscribers that have purchased NFL Sunday Ticket. The plaintiffs allege that (i) the 32 NFL teams have unlawfully agreed not to compete with each other in the market for nationally televised NFL football games and instead have "pooled" their broadcasts and assigned to the NFL the exclusive right to market them; and (ii) the NFL and DIRECTV have entered into an unlawful exclusive distribution agreement that allows DIRECTV to charge "supra-competitive" prices for the NFL Sunday Ticket package. The complaints seek unspecified treble damages and attorneys' fees along with injunctive relief. The first complaint, Abrahamian v. National Football League, Inc., et al., was served in June 2015. In December 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases outside the Central District of California to that court for consolidation and management of pre-trial proceedings. "We vigorously dispute the allegations the complaints have asserted," the Company said. AT&T INC: Suit Related to Unlimited Data Plans Pending ------------------------------------------------------ AT&T Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the litigation related to its Unlimited Data Plan Claims. The Company said, "In October 2014, the FTC filed a civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against AT&T Mobility, LLC seeking injunctive relief and unspecified money damages under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC's allegations concern the application of AT&T's Maximum Bit Rate (MBR) program to customers who enrolled in our Unlimited Data Plan from 2007-2010. MBR temporarily reduces in certain instances the download speeds of a small portion of our legacy Unlimited Data Plan customers each month after the customer exceeds a designated amount of data during the customer's billing cycle. MBR is an industry-standard practice that is designed to affect only the most data-intensive applications (such as video streaming). Texts, emails, tweets, social media posts, Internet browsing and many other applications are typically unaffected. Contrary to the FTC's allegations, which we vigorously dispute, our MBR program is permitted by our customer contracts, was fully disclosed in advance to our Unlimited Data Plan customers, and was implemented to protect the network for the benefit of all customers." "In March 2015, our motion to dismiss the litigation on the grounds that the FTC lacked jurisdiction to file suit was denied. In May 2015, the Court granted our motion to certify its decision for immediate appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently granted our petition to accept the appeal, and the appeal is now pending before that Court while limited discovery proceeds in the District Court. Oral argument on the appeal is presently set for June 17, 2016. In addition to the FTC case, several class actions have been filed also challenging our MBR program. We vigorously dispute the allegations the complaints have asserted." AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Final Judgment Approving Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has not yet entered a final judgment approving the settlement of a shareholder class action complaint. On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014. The parties have reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of $62 million. Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $60 million of the settlement was paid by the Company's insurers and approximately $2 million was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance policy) into escrow. On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on December 1, 2015 the court held a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement and expressed an intent to grant final approval. However, the court has not yet entered a final judgment approving the settlement. If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to reasonably estimate. AVON PRODUCTS: Poovathur Settlement Awaits Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that settlement of Poovathur remains subject to court approval. Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries. On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014 and between December 14, 2011 and the present. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The parties have reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of approximately $6 million. Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $5 million of the settlement will be paid by the Company's insurer and approximately $1 million will be paid by the Company (which represents the remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance policy). Certain documentation relating to the settlement has not yet been finalized, and the settlement is subject to court approval. If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to reasonably estimate. BARNES AND NOBLE: Faces "Hartpence" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Christine N. Hartpence, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Barnes and Noble, Inc., Case No. 16050342 (Phil. Cmmw., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Barnes and Noble, Inc. is the largest retail bookseller in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas More Holland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS MORE HOLLAND 1522 Locust Street, Grace Hall Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 592-8080 Facsimile: (215) 592-8550 BEARGLASS INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Ubaldo Hernandez, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Bearglass Inc., Ira Lehman, Mark Zuckowitz, Case No. 1:16-cv-02660 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a glass & mirror shop located at 399 20th St, Brooklyn, NY 11215. Ubaldo Hernandez is a pro se plaintiff. BETTER ALTERNATIVE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Tabor" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Tabor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. A Better Alternative to Senior Care, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01281 (N.D. Ohio., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours work in excess of 40 hours per week. A Better Alternative to Senior Care, Inc. operates a home health care business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com BLUE CROSS: Appeals Court Voids $30MM Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- JC Reindl, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a U.S. appeals court has voided a $30-million settlement in a class action against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan involving price-fixing allegations, contending that key details of the settlement were wrongly sealed and kept hidden from public view. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said on June 7 that members of the aggrieved class -- estimated at 3 million to 7 million people -- had no ability to examine the facts and reasoning behind the settlement and that the district court in Detroit approved the settlement without "meaningful scrutiny." The opinion tosses out the settlement and sends the underlying class-action case back to U.S. District Court in Detroit "for an open and vigorous examination of the settlement's fairness," the opinion said. The settlement, reached in June 2014 between Blue Cross and the class-action plaintiffs, concerned allegations that The Blues abused its dominant market position in Michigan by pressuring more than 60 hospitals into contracts that were preferential to Blue Cross and adverse to competing health insurers, while also raising health care costs overall. The lawsuit arose from a 2010 Department of Justice complaint against Blue Cross and ultimately alleged damages of more than $13.7 billion. Blue Cross did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the $30-million now-voided settlement. Much of that settlement amount was to go to expenses and lawyers, with just $14.6 million going to the members. The settlement was approved by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Hood. In its opinion issued on June 7, the appeals court chided the district court for sealing too many legal filings and documents in the case at the behest of Blue Cross and the original plaintiffs, including plaintiffs' amended complaint, nearly 200 exhibits and an expert's report that ultimately cost $2 million out of the settlement amount. The expert's report calculated the class-wide damages of the alleged price-fixing scheme at $118 million, the June 7 opinion said. An objection to the settlement was brought by various members of the class-action group. They argued the settlement was too small and that too much of it would go to lawyers. In addition, a group of 26 self-insured businesses with health plans administered by Blue Cross sought to unseal the records in the case. "Class members who sought to object to the proposed settlement thus had no ability to examine the bases of what they were objecting to," the appeals court said. "As a practical matter, therefore, both the general public and the class were able to access only fragmentary information about the conduct giving rise to this litigation, and next to nothing about the bases of the settlement itself." Blue Cross spokeswoman Helen Stojic said the insurance company is "reviewing the court's decision and are hopeful we can bring this to resolution once again." An attorney for the self-insured businesses, Bryan Walters of Varnum in Grand Rapids, said they are pleased with the decision to unseal the records. "We continue to have very serious concerns about the fairness of the proposed settlement," Mr. Walters said in a statement. "We look forward to the opportunity to review the record on behalf of over 25 businesses we represent who objected to the settlement." An attorney for the original plaintiffs in the class-action case could not be reached for comment late on June 7. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Rochon Genova Launches Abilify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rochon Genova LLP on June 7 disclosed that it has commenced a proposed national class action on behalf of Canadian users of the prescription drugs Abilify and Abilify Maintena. Abilify is an antipsychotic medication indicated for the treatment of Schizophrenia, Bipolar I Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. Since its approval in 2009, Abilify has become one of the most widely prescribed antipsychotic drugs in Canada and worldwide, with the number of Canadian prescriptions increasing from approximately 3000 in 2010 to over 1 million in 2013. Dopamine agonists such as Abilify and Abilify Maintena have been scientifically linked to an increase in compulsive behaviours, including compulsive gambling, binge-eating, compulsive shopping/spending, and hypersexuality. A safety review conducted by the European Medicines Agency established a connection between Abilify use and compulsive gambling, resulting in revisions to the European product labeling in October 2012. No warning was included in the Canadian product monograph for Abilify until November 2, 2015 when Health Canada confirmed the link between the use of Abilify and an increased risk of compulsive gambling and hypersexuality. The proposed class action, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges, among other things, that the pharmaceutical companies responsible for manufacturing and marketing Abilify and Abilify Maintena -- Bristol-Myers Squibb, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, and Lundbeck -- knew, or ought to have known, that the drugs cause or materially increase the risk of developing compulsive behaviours, yet failed to disclose such risk. The claim alleges that the drug makers' failure to warn Canadians of these risks resulted in significant harm to the plaintiffs and class members. Joel Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP, stated, "Canadians have a right to be informed about the risks associated with the prescription medication that they use. Failure to provide adequate and timely warnings can have serious consequences. In this case, the plaintiff needlessly lost over $250,000 through compulsive gambling, which ceased immediately after he stopped taking Abilify." The claims have not yet been proven in court. For information about the proposed class action please contact Jon Sloan at (416) 363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 5 Suits in Conn. Over Pradaxa(R) ------------------------------------------------------------ Five lawsuits have been filed in the Connecticut Superior Court on May 25, 2016, for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R). Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877. The case are: -- Alvin Behn v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com -- Frank Blessing v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com -- Bill Bousman v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com -- Floyd Boyer v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com -- Michael Brown v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 5 Suits in Conn. Over Pradaxa(R) ------------------------------------------------------------ Five lawsuits have been filed in the Connecticut Superior Court on May 26, 2016, for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R). Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877. The cases are: -- Carolyn Gass, as surviving child and personal representative of the estate of Dorothy Prince, Decedent v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521-4492 Facsimile: (214) 526-6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com -- John Evans and Katrina Evans v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com -- Robert Hawkins v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com -- James Palmer v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com -- Timothy Taylor v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Ellen A. Presby, Esq. NEMEROFF LAW FIRM 2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 774-2258 Facsimile: (214) 393-7897 E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Range Extenders ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Rollazo, Dr. Glynda Roberson, Brandon Redmond, and Adeel Siddiqui, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BMW of North America, LLC, and BMW AG, Case No. 8:16- cv-00966 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2016), is brought on behalf of all owners or lessees of BMW i3 electric cars, which were sold by the Defendants with defective Range Extenders. The Defendants are engaged in the import and distribution of BMW luxury/performance vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Jessica Thompson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com jessicat@hbsslaw.com - and - Lee M. Gordon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: lee@hbsslaw.com CASHCALL INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Herbert White, James Hayes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cashcall, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00311-HEH (E.D. Va., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Cashcall, Inc. is in the business of providing personal and business loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Wilson Speer, Esq. VIRGINIA PROVERTY LAW CENTER 919 E Main Street, Suite 610 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 782-9430 Facsimile: (804) 649-0974 E-mail: jay@vplc.org - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 4084 University Drive, Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: craig@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com srotkis@clalegal.com CAVIAR INC: Levin Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffry Levin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jeffry Levin v. Caviar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01285-EDL, in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte dismissed the putative wage and hour class action. The case was brought by restaurant delivery drivers against Defendant Caviar, Inc. The Court previously granted a motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims, held that the class action waiver was enforceable but the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 waiver was not, and ultimately ordered the parties to arbitrate the issue of the arbitrability of the PAGA claims. The appellate case is captioned as Jeffry Levin v. Caviar, Inc., Case No. 16-15975, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Matthew David Carlson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Simona Agnolucci, Esq. HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN PC Three Embarcadero Center, Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: (415) 434-1600 E-mail: sagnolucci@kvn.com - and - Erin Meyer, Esq. Ashok Ramani, Esq. R. James Slaughter, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 E-mail: emeyer@kvn.com aramani@kvn.com rslaughter@kvn.com CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Sikora" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the final approval hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2016, in the "Sikora" class action case. On April 11, 2013, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820). A similar lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed in Placer County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. SCV27073). By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer the Reed and Sikora cases to Los Angeles County. Both cases (Case Nos. SCV0032820 and SCV27073) were subsequently coordinated together in Los Angeles County by order of the Judicial Council. On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion to enforce judgment and to preclude the prosecution of certain claims under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. On March 11, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion in Case No. SCV0032820. The parties participated in voluntary mediation on June 25, 2015 and have executed a memorandum of understanding with respect to the terms of settlement, which is subject to court approval and is intended to be a full and final resolution of the actions. On January 29, 2016, the court granted the parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2016. Based on the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Masters" Suit Ongoing in San Diego ------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the "Masters" class action lawsuit. On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278). By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014- 00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court. On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior Court. The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the Plaintiff and other purported class members. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. Based on the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Guglielmo" Class Action Pending in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the Company intends to defend against the "Guglielmo" class action lawsuit. On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions (Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 2:15-CV-03117). On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the Complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt- in Plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Brown" Suit Sent to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the court has granted the Company's motion to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's wage statement claim and stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual arbitration. On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court alleging that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements as set forth in the California Labor Code. On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments (Brown v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. CIV1504091). The Company said, "On April 18, 2016, the court granted our motion to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's wage statement claim and stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual arbitration. We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments." CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Action Ongoing in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the Company intends to defend against the "Tagalogon" class action lawsuit. On December 10, 2015 a former restaurant management employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BC603620). "We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalty Owners Suit Moved to Tarrant, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Chesapeake is defending numerous lawsuits filed by individual royalty owners alleging royalty underpayment with respect to properties in Texas. On April 8, 2015, Chesapeake obtained a transfer order from the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer a substantial portion of these lawsuits filed since June 2014 to the 348th District Court of Tarrant County for pre-trial purposes. On February 12, 2016, Chesapeake filed a motion to change venue for several other lawsuits to Harris County, or alternatively, to Tarrant County. The parties subsequently agreed to transfer such other lawsuits to Tarrant County, with Chesapeake reserving the right to request transfer of any other such lawsuits to Harris County. These lawsuits, which primarily relate to the Barnett Shale, generally allege that Chesapeake underpaid royalties by making improper deductions and using incorrect production volumes. In addition to allegations of breach of contract, a number of these lawsuits allege fraud, conspiracy, joint venture and antitrust violations by Chesapeake. "We expect that additional lawsuits will be filed by new plaintiffs making similar allegations. The lawsuits seek direct damages in varying amounts, together with exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest," the Company said. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalty Owners' Suits Ongoing in Pa. and Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that putative statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and purported class arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company's divestiture of substantially all of its midstream business and most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and one of the cases includes claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and violations of antitrust laws related to purported markets for gas mineral rights, operating rights and gas gathering sources. "We have not accrued a loss contingency for any of the Pennsylvania and Ohio matters seeking class certification," the Company said. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 3 Lawsuits Filed in Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in March 2016, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and other defendants. The lawsuits allege that, since December 2007, and continuing through March 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuits seek damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans which would restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Class Suit Over Senior Note Holders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the Company's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (2020 Notes) and 6.125% Senior Notes due 2021 (2021 Notes) was filed in April 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the Company's December 2015 debt exchange, whereby the Company privately exchanged newly issued 8.00% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2022 (Second Lien Notes) for certain outstanding senior unsecured notes and contingent convertible notes. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by benefiting themselves and a minority of noteholders who are qualified institutional buyers (QIBs). According to the lawsuit, as a result of the Company's private debt exchange in which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under Regulation S) were eligible to participate, the Company unjustly enriched itself at the expense of class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the 2020 Notes and 2022 Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages and attorney's fees, in addition to declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of the Second Lien Notes are null and void and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a default under the indentures for the 2020 Notes and 2021 Notes. CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Vehicle Sunroof Defect Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that Chrysler vehicle owners who filed a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that a defect in their vehicles' sunroofs cause them to leak have no grounds for their case, according to Chrysler. Chrysler says the plaintiffs have never stopped using their vehicles, and continued to drive the vehicles for years and for tens of thousands of miles without incident. The original lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey in 2014. Vehicles covered in the lawsuit include the Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler 300. The model years are 2009 to present. Attorneys claim the alleged defect manifested during the warranty period for all plaintiffs, who seek damages in addition to injunctive and equitable relief and attorneys' fees. Chrysler alleged that certain third-party dealers or independent repair shops performed negligent, incomplete, or otherwise improper repairs or inspections of some plaintiffs' vehicles, and that these actions destroy the cause of the complaint. Chrysler asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs' class action complaint with prejudice. CLARITY SERVICES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Jensen, Gwendolyn Jones, and Kathryn Greene, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Clarity Services, Inc., Charles Hallinan, and Timothy Ranney, Case No. 3:16-cv-00312-REP (E.D. Va., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Clarity Services, Inc. provides real-time credit reporting, fraud detection and risk management solutions to lenders in the subprime consumer market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 4084 University Drive,Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-1067 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: craig@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - James Wilson Speer, Esq. VIRGINIA PROVERTY LAW CENTER 919 E Main Street,Suite 610 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 782-9430 Facsimile: (804) 649-0974 E-mail: jay@vplc.org COLOR SPOT: Faces "Olivares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Pascual Olivares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Color Spot Nurseries, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC620758 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Color Spot Nurseries, Inc. distributes bedding plants, vegetables, herbs, and shrubs, to retail and commercial customers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com CORVALLIS, OR: Bid for Class Certification in "Smith" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned ROBERT C. SMITH, et al, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CORVALLIS, Defendants, Civ. No. 6:14-cv-01382-MC (D. Or.), Judge Michael J. McShane granted in part and denied, in part, the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. A full-text copy of Judge McShane's June 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/o0PzQW from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs Robert Craig Smith, Karen Albreacht, and Kimball Craig are homeless individuals who brought the action against the defendant City of Corvallis, alleging that the city's policies and practices regarding the notification and execution of the city's "clean ups" or "sweeps" of homeless encampments are illegal. The plaintiffs claimed that Corvallis has routinely confiscated and disposed of the personal property of the homeless without adequate notice, just compensation, or due process. They alleged that Corvallis' policies and practices violate their state and federal constitutional rights, state and federal statutory law, and state common law. Corvallis denied the allegations and claimed that their policies and practices are compliant with all statutory laws and the Constitution. Robert Craig Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Mark S. Davidson -- mdavidson@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC & Teena M. Killian. Karen Albreacht, Kimball Craig, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark S. Davidson, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC. City of Corvallis, OR, Defendant, represented by Aaron Hisel, Law Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates & Gerald L. Warren, Law Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates. COMCAST CORPORATION: "Spencer" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Wilbert Spencer, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, and Comcast Cablevision Communications, Inc., Case No. 160500509, was removed from the Philadelphia CCP to the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02589-RBS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts job discrimination practices. The Defendants operate a mass media company and is the largest broadcasting and largest cable television company in the world by revenue. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Frederick Robinette, Esq. POST & POST LLC 920 Cassatt Rd Suite 102 200 Berwyn Park Suite 102 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 913-3034 E-mail: jrobinette@postandpost.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL 1735 Market St., 51st FL Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: (215) 864-8122 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 E-mail: kastenberg@ballardspahr.com COMMUNITY LOANS: "Cox" Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Clay D. Land preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement agreement in the case captioned JASON M. COX, ESTEVAN, CASTILLO, LEO THOMAS TOOKES, JR, and ALESIA LEWIS-VINSON, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMMUNITY LOANS OF AMERICA, INC., ET. AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00177-CDL (M.D. Ga.). Judge Land appointed Garden City Group, LLC as Settlement Administrator. A fairness hearing shall be held on October 6, 2016 at 10 a.m., before Judge Land in the United States District Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 120 12th Street, Columbus, Georgia. A full-text copy of Judge Land's June 3, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/33RPJ3 from Leagle.com. JASON M COX, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN R BEVIS, JAMES CAMERON TRIBBLE, KYLE S FISCHER, FISCHER SCOTT, LLC & ROY E BARNES, BARNES LAW GROUP LLC. ESTEVAN CASTILLO, LEO THOMAS TOOKES, JR, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMES CAMERON TRIBBLE, KYLE S FISCHER, FISCHER SCOTT, LLC, ROY E BARNES, BARNES LAW GROUP LLC & JOHN R BEVIS. ALESIA LEWIS-VINSON, Plaintiff, represented by SCOTT C CROWLEY, JAMES CAMERON TRIBBLE, KYLE S FISCHER, FISCHER SCOTT, LLC, ROY E BARNES, BARNES LAW GROUP LLC & JOHN R BEVIS. COMMUNITY LOANS OF AMERICA INC, ALABAMA TITLE LOANS INC, GEORGIA AUTO PAWN INC, Defendants, represented by CHRISTOPHER JON BOWERS, COLIN R P DELANEY -- cdelaney@sgrlaw.com -- DAVID C NEWMAN -- dnewman@sgrlaw.com -- JAMES C CLARK, JR. -- jcc@psstf.com -- STEPHEN M FORTE -- sforte@sgrlaw.com -- WILLIAM PARKER SANDERS -- psanders@sgrlaw.com -- & WILLIAM L TUCKER -- wlt@psstf.com. JOHN DOE, Defendant, represented by JAMES C CLARK, JR., WILLIAM L TUCKER & JAMES C CLARK, JR.. JOHN DOE, 1-10, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM L TUCKER. FAST AUTO LOANS INC, DELAWARE TITLE LOANS INC, IDAHO TITLE LOANS INC, ILLINOIS TITLE LOANS INC, FAST AUTO AND PAYDAY LOANS INC, SOUTHERN FAST LOANS OF LOUISIANA INC, MISSISSIPPI TITLE LOANS INC, MISSOURI TITLE LOANS INC, NEW ENGLAND AUTO FINANCE INC, NEW ENGLAND AUTO AND PAY LOANS INC, NEW MEXICO TITLE LOANS INC, NEVADA TITLE AND PAYDAY LOANS, INC., PR AUTO LOANS LLC, TENNESSEE TITLE LOANS INC, TEXAS TITLE AND PAYDAY LOANS LLC, TEXAS CAR TITLE AND PAYDAY LOAN SERVICES INC, UTAH TITLE LOANS INC, WISCONSIN AUTO TITLE LOANS INC, ROBERT I REICH, TERRY FIELDS, DAKOTA AUTO TITLE LOANS INC, Defendants, represented by COLIN R P DELANEY, DAVID C NEWMAN, JAMES C CLARK, JR., STEPHEN M FORTE & WILLIAM L TUCKER. CULINART INC: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities ------------------------------------------------------------ Deborah Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Culinart, Inc., Culinart Group Inc.,Culinart Holdings, Inc., Joseph H. Pacifico, Thomas R. Eich, Michael Pitkewicz, and all other related entities, Case No. 601978/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons who are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate a dining service company with its principal place of business at 175 Sunnyside Boulevard, Plainview, New York 11803. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 DEDICATED FLEET: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Mojica, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Dedicated Fleet Systems, Inc., Osterkamp Transportation Group, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC621739 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees with accurately itemized wage statements. The Defendants own and operate a trucking company located at 1350 Philadelphia St, Pomona, CA 91766. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Rita Leong, Esq. Kyle Dominguez, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 1160 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (818) 850-1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Rita@OLFLA.com Kyle@OLFLA.com DEVRY EDUCATION: To Defend Against Rayter-Herendeen Suit in Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed on January 29, 2016, by Alex Rayter and Ryan Herendeen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against DeVry Group and DeVry University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California claiming breaches of implied contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act, the California False Advertising Act and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and negligent misrepresentations. The claims are based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the FTC lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against future violations of law, restitution, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, reimbursement of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. DeVry Group strongly believes DeVry University's advertising complied with each of the various laws implicated in this action and both DeVry Group and DeVry University intend to vigorously defend themselves. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Arkansas Class Suit in Early Stages ----------------------------------------------------------- Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaints. On June 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a ruling in a lawsuit against another provider that may impact this action. In that case, the Court ruled that a lawsuit against several facilities formerly operated by Golden Living could proceed as a class action. The lawsuit against the Company remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. EAST COAST: "Schlegel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Lawrence Schlegel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. East Coast Assemblers, Inc., d/b/a National Assemblers, Inc., and Glenn Schneider, Case No. 9:16-cv-80838-BB (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a nationwide full service assembling business with its principal office at 6586 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 145, Lake Worth, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450 Doral, FL 33166 Telephone: (561) 299-3703 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com EMC CORPORATION: 15 Shareholder Class Actions Pending ----------------------------------------------------- EMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of May 5, 2016, fifteen putative shareholder class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed, of which thirteen were filed purportedly on behalf of Company shareholders and two purportedly on behalf of VMware shareholders. The lawsuits name various combinations of the Company, its current and former directors, VMware, certain of VMware's directors, Denali, Dell and Merger Sub, among others, as defendants. The fifteen lawsuits seek, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, rescission of the Merger if consummated, an award of fees and costs and/or an award of monetary damages. The suits are: 1. IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3130-BLS1 Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County 10/15/2015 2. Barrett v. Tucci, Civ. No. 15-6023-A Mass. Superior Court, Middlesex County 10/16/2015 3. Graulich v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3169-BLS1 Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County 10/19/2015 4. Vassallo v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 1584-3173-BLS1 Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County 10/19/2015 5. City of Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3174-BLS1 Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County 10/19/2015 6. Lasker v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 1584-3214-BLS1 Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County 10/23/2015 7. Walsh v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 15-13654 U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts 10/27/2015 8. Local Union No. 373 U.A. Pension Plan v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 1584-3253-BLS1 Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County 10/28/2015 9. City of Lakeland Emps.' Pension & Ret. Fund v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3269-BLS1 Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County 10/28/2015 10. Ma v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3281-BLS1 Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County 10/29/2015 11. Stull v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 15-13692 U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts 10/30/2015 12. Jacobs v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 15-6318-H Mass. Superior Court, Middlesex County 11/12/2015 13. Ford v. VMware, Inc., C.A. No. 11714-VCL Delaware Chancery Court 11/17/2015 14. Pancake v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 16-10040 U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts 1/11/2016 15. Booth Family Trust v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 16-10114 U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts 1/26/2016 Of the thirteen lawsuits filed purportedly on behalf of Company shareholders, nine were filed in Massachusetts state court, and four in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Eleven of the lawsuits initially advanced substantially the same allegations that the Merger Agreement was adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of the Company's directors. Certain of those lawsuits also alleged that the Company, Denali, Dell, Merger Sub, Silver Lake Partners, LLC, and/or MSD Partners, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. On November 5, 2015, pursuant to a motion made by the Company and its directors, the nine lawsuits then pending in state court in Massachusetts were consolidated with and into the first-filed of those actions, IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Joseph M. Tucci, et al. That action, brought in the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk County Superior Court, named as defendants the Company and each member of its Board of Directors (as constituted as of October 12, 2015), Denali, Dell and Merger Sub. The Company and its directors moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the IBEW matter pursuant to provisions of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, M.G.L. c. 156D, Sec. 7.40 et seq., and Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that the complaint asserts a derivative action on behalf of the Company and should be dismissed for failure to make the requisite pre-suit demand on the Company. On December 7, 2015 the Court granted this motion and on December 24, 2015 the court entered judgment dismissing each of the consolidated actions. On January 21, 2016, three of the plaintiffs served notice that they will appeal this judgment. On April 29, 2016, the appeal was docketed in the Massachusetts Appeals Court as case number 2016-P-0595. On May 2, 2016, the appellants filed an application for direct appellate review in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as Direct Appellate Review No. DAR-24347. On January 11, 2016, following the state court judgment and a motion by the Company and its directors to stay or dismiss the two lawsuits then pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the plaintiffs in those cases amended their complaints to eliminate the initial claims based on Massachusetts state law and substitute allegations that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus dated December 14, 2015 omits and/or misrepresents material information and that such omissions and misrepresentations constitute violations of Section 14(a) of, and Rule 14a-9 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Two additional lawsuits have since been filed in the same court advancing substantially the same proxy-disclosure-based allegations. Of the two lawsuits filed purportedly on behalf of VMware shareholders, one was filed in Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts, and the other in Delaware Chancery Court. Both generally allege that the Company, in its capacity as the majority shareholder of VMware, and individual defendants who are directors of the Company, VMware, or both, breached their fiduciary duties to minority shareholders of VMware in connection with the Merger. Both further allege that various combinations of defendants aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Company, VMware, Denali, Dell, Merger Sub, and other defendants have served or filed motions to dismiss the operative complaints in both actions. The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the Company's operations. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. EMCORE CORP: Offered Employees One Time Cash Payment ---------------------------------------------------- EMCORE Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has offered current employees the opportunity to receive a one-time cash payment in exchange for a release of all potential claims related to the Mirasol lawsuit. On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol ("Mirasol"), on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt employees of the Company working in California since December 15, 2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges seven causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to provide compliant wage statements; and (6) unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. The claims are premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol and the putative class members were not provided with their legally required meal periods. Mirasol seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre- judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In March 2016, the Company offered current employees the opportunity to receive a one-time cash payment in exchange for a release of all potential claims related to the Mirasol lawsuit. The Company estimates that its potential future liability related to all potential putative class members may range from $0.1 million to $4.3 million, including penalties and fines associated with the claims at March 31, 2016. Based on the preliminary responses received, the Company has accrued $0.1 million at March 31, 2016, which represents the best estimate within the range. This amount has been recorded within Operating Expense for the three and six months ended March 31, 2016. ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Sued in Delaware Over Fiduciary Duty Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Brinckerhoff, individually and as trustee of the Peter R. Brinckerhoff Rev. TR U A DTD 10/17/97, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc.; Enbridge, Inc.; Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C.; Jerrey A. Connelly; Rebecca B. Roberts; Dan A. Westbrook; J. Richard Bird; J. Herbert England; C. Gregory Harper; D. Guy Jarvis; Mark A. Maki; John K. Whelen; Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C. and Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, Case No. 11314-VCS (Del. Ch. Ct., May 26, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties, specifically by causing the Partnership to reacquire a substantial asset from the general partner in a conflicted transaction, at an unfair price and on terms unfair to the unaffiliated unitholders. The Defendants own and operate the Lakehead pipeline system -- the United States portion of a crude oil and liquid petroleum pipeline system traversing portions of Canada and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Slights III, Esq. MORRIS JAMES LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 PO Box 2306 Wilmington, DE 19899-2306 Telephone: (302) 888-6970. E-mail: llazarus@morrisjames.com ENVOY AIR: "Schroeder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- K. Schroeder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Envoy Air, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC621865 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, continuing wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code. Envoy Air, Inc. is an air carrier based in Irving, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Rebecca Lee, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Ave. Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com - and - John P. Dorigan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN 600 Canterbury Lane Sagamore Hills, OH 44067 Telephone: (330) 748-4475 Facsimile: (330) 748-4475 E-mail: jpdorigan@aol.com EVENTBRITE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kubik" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Kubik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01272-AJB-NLS (S.D Cal., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Eventbrite, Inc. operates a company that permits users to sign up for events electronically. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@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 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com FAIRLIFE LLC: "Kremmel" Suit Removed to S. District Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ Paulette Kremmel, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated citizens of Illinois v. Fairlife, LLC, Case No. 16-L-241, was removed from the St. Clair County to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00583 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts product-liability claims. Fairlife, LLC operates a health and wellness dairy company that produces and markets premium-quality, value-added nutrition products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC 8816 Manchester Road, No. 109 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 258-0212 E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick D. Cloud, esq. Douglas R. Heise, Esq. HEYL, ROYSTER ET AL. 105 West Vandalia St., Ste. 100 P.O. Box 467 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-4646 Facsimile: (618) 656-7940 E-mail: pcloud@heylroyster.com dheise@heylroyster.com FEDEX GROUND: "Carrow" Class Suit Removed to Dist. of New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Michael Carrow, Michael Fennell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fedex Ground Package Systems, Inc., Case No. CAM-L-23- 00016, was removed from the Camden County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-03026-RBK-JS to the proceeding. Fedex Ground Package Systems, Inc. provides business-to-business package shipping and ground delivery services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony L. Marchetti Jr., Esq. MARCHETTI LAW, P.C. 900 N. Kings Hwy, Suite 306 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 414-1800 Facsimile: (267) 219-4838 E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey I. Kohn, Esq. O'MELVENY & MEYERS, LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2067 E-mail: jkohn@omm.com FCA US LLC: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Faltermeier" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DAVID FALTERMEIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-491-CV-W-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays ruled on the parties' first discovery dispute which concerned various interrogatories and requests for production (RFP) served on the plaintiff by FCA US LLC. Judge Kays ruled as follows: 1. Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory #7. 2. Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatories #8 and #15. 3. Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory #11 and comply with RFP #45. 4. Plaintiff objection concerning RFP #50 is sustained. A full-text copy of Judge Kays' June 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/Uy66xc from Leagle.com. The case is a putative class action arising from alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 407.020, in connection with the sale of certain Jeep vehicles. Plaintiff David Faltermeier alleges Defendant FCA US LLC ("FCA") made misrepresentations during a vehicle safety recall about the safety of the vehicles' fuel tanks that have caused Plaintiff and all other consumers who have purchased the recalled vehicles since June 4, 2013, an ascertainable financial loss. David Faltermeier, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher S. Shank, Shank & Moore, LLC, David Lee Heinemann, Shank & Moore, LLC & Stephen J. Moore, Shank & Moore, LLC. FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy Ann Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Scott Harston Morgan -- smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Sharon B. Rosenberg -- srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP & Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP. FIRSTMERIT CORP: Settles Class Action Over Huntington Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremy Nobile, writing for Crain's Cleveland Business, reports that FirstMerit Corp. and Huntington Bancshares have settled a class action lawsuit with FirstMerit shareholders who claimed the directors of the former agreed to unfair terms in their sale to Huntington, according to a company filing. Terms of the settlement were not immediately disclosed. According to FirstMerit, all defendants named in the suit, which include FirstMerit chairman and CEO Paul Greig and other directors, still deny "all of the allegations made by plaintiffs," but "have agreed to settle the actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation." Attorneys representing shareholders and the companies were not immediately available for comment. According to the original complaint, shareholders claimed that directors ultimately breached their fiduciary responsibilities in the merger agreement by accepting unfair terms in the deal, among other issues including engaging in an "inadequate" sales process. Court documents show that many of the complaints come "despite the fact that (Greig) stands to make as much as $31.7 million" in the deal. The complaint requested "a variety of equitable and injunctive relief including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the merger, directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of FirstMerit and its shareholders, directing the defendants to account to the plaintiffs and the purported class for their damages, and awarding plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees." Terms of the merger, which was announced in January, feature a mix cash and stock sale consisting of 1.72 shares of Huntington common stock, plus a fixed $5 in cash per share of FirstMerit stock outstanding, ultimately representing a 32% premium over FirstMerit's share price at the time. In March, some observers of the deal told Crain's that the sale price, which represented about a premium of 1.7 times tangible book value for FirstMerit, was fair. The settled case is one of five "substantively similar" cases involving class action lawsuits by "alleged" shareholders, according to an April filing by FirstMerit. The merger, expected to close in the third quarter of the year, will bring Huntington to about $100 billion in total assets, creating the largest bank by market share in Ohio. GENERAL MILLS: Class Certification in Environmental Case Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Garel-Frantzen, Esq. -- agarel@schiffhardin.com -- and Aphrodite Kokolis, Esq. -- dkokolis@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff Hardin LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reversed class certification in a case involving claims of alleged environmental contamination. Ebert v. General Mills, Inc. [1] illustrates that class action requirements, like predominance of common issues and cohesiveness of claims, can be difficult to establish in the environmental context because issues of liability, causation, and damages are individualized. Ebert may pose a significant obstacle for class certification in future environmental cases. In Ebert, landowners sued General Mills, alleging that the company caused trichloroethylene (TCE) to be released from its former industrial facility and that TCE vapors migrated into surrounding residential areas, threatening the landowners' health and the value of their properties. The residents asserted five claims against General Mills: -- Violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act; -- Violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; -- Private nuisance; -- Common law negligence; and -- Willful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiffs later excluded personal injury claims and sought only property damages and declaratory and injunctive relief requiring General Mills to remediate the properties. The district court certified a class for declaratory and injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(b)(2) and for property damages under FRCP 23(b)(3). The district court bifurcated the action into two phases: first, determining liability under FRCP 23(b)(2), and then, if General Mills is found liable, determining damages under FRCP 23(b)(3). The district court stated that "questions on individualized exposure" would not be addressed as part of the class claims. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that individualized issues predominated and that the class claims were not cohesive. First, the Eighth Circuit determined that the individualized issues in the case predominated over those issues common to the class under FRCP 23(b)(3). It noted that, to resolve claims of liability, the district court would have to analyze whether General Mills' actions caused the alleged vapor contamination and subsequent damage on each individual property. According to the court, "there likely will be a property-by- property assessment of additional upgradient (or other) sources of contamination, whether unique conditions and features of the property create the potential for vapor intrusion, whether (and to what extent) the groundwater beneath a property is contaminated, whether mitigation has occurred at the property, or whether each individual plaintiff acquired the property prior to or after the alleged diminution in value." Adjudication of these issues would require different evidence depending on the class member. The Eighth Circuit specifically took issue with the district court's attempt to limit the effect of individualized issues through bifurcation: "[I]t is the deliberate limiting of issues by this district court in this case that is problematic. . . . Here, by bifurcating the case and narrowing the question for which certification was sought, the district court limited the issues and essentially manufactured a case that would satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry." Second, the Eighth Circuit held that the claims lacked the cohesiveness needed to proceed as a class under FRCP 23(b)(2) because the issues were "highly individualized." The court concluded that "[r]emediation efforts on each of the affected properties, should they be awarded, will be unique." For example, General Mills had installed customized vapor mitigation systems at some, but not all, properties, and the results of TCE soil vapor sampling varied by property. Facts will often vary among plaintiffs in class environmental claims because releases of contaminants, by nature, are nonlinear. [1] No. 15-1735, 2016 WL 2943193 (8th Cir. May 20, 2016). GLENCORE LTD: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: ZINC ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 14-cv-3728 (KBF) and related actions (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine B. Forrest denied Glencore Ltd.'s and Pacorini Metals USA, LLC's motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint as to the plaintiffs' monopolization and attempted monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, but granted the motions as to the plaintiffs' illegal merger claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. A full-text copy of Judge Forrest's June 6, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/hWBloe from Leagle.com. The complex antitrust action, as alleged in the operative Second Amended Complaint, involves allegations that Glencore Ltd. and Pacorini, two affiliates of global commodities conglomerate Glencore plc, have monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for Special High Grade zinc or the market for selling such zinc in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2, and that Glencore Ltd.'s acquisition of Pacorini constituted an illegal merger in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. section 18. Duncan Galvanizing Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell -- clovell@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Solomon B. Cera -- scera@cerallp.com -- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Martin Jaccarino -- bjaccarino@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Bradley J. Demuth -- bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. & Kimberly A. Justice -- kjustice@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Galvanizers Company, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft -- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.. Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc., Southwestern Wire, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice, Terrence Scott Ziegler -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.. Iowa Steel and Wire Co., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, Terrence Scott Ziegler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.. Galvanizers Company, Plaintiff, represented by Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.. Jasper Materials, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.. Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc., Movant, represented by Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice. Duncan Galvanizing Corporation, Movant, represented by Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice & Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP. The London Metal Exchange Limited, Defendant, represented by Margaret M. Zwisler, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. Glencore Ltd., Defendant, represented by Chelsea Rebekah McLean -- chelsea.mclean@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Eliot Lauer -- elauer@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP, Jacques Semmelman -- jsemmelman@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP & Michael Andrew Mix -- mmix@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP. Pacorini Metals USA LLC., Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, John H. Lyons -- john.h.lyons@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, John M. Nannes -- john.nannes@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Tiffany Rider Rohrbaugh, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Defendant, represented by Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP. Metro International Trade Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Hilda Blecher, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, William Henry Wagener, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP. JPMorgan Chase & Company, Defendant, represented by David William Haller, Covington & Burling LLP, Henry Liu, Covington & Burling LLP, John S. Playforth, Covington & Burling LLP, Mark David Herman, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice. Goldman Sachs International, GS Power Holdings LLC, Mitsi Holdings LLC, MCEPF Metro I, Inc., Defendants, represented by Jennifer Hilda Blecher, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, William Henry Wagener, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP. J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, JP Morgan Securities plc f/k/a JP Morgan Securities Ltd., Henry Bath LLC, Defendants, represented by David William Haller, Covington & Burling LLP, Henry Liu, Covington & Burling LLP, John S. Playforth, Covington & Burling LLP, Mark David Herman, Covington & Burling, L.L.P. & Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling, L.L.P.. GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action, Aug. 24 Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Android users who made purchases from Google's app store are asking to proceed with a class-action against the company for allegedly disclosing their names and other personal data to developers. "Casting aside the express promises made in their own terms of use, for years, defendants have routinely and systematically disclosed to third-parties, their buyers' personal contact and billing information -- including, names and email addresses -- which they now admit was not necessary to complete the transactions or otherwise authorized for disclosure," lawyers for the users write in a motion filed with U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California. The move marks the latest development in a lawsuit brought in 2013 by Illinois resident Alice Svenson. She alleged in a potential class-action that she purchased a $1.77 app that converts SMS messages to emails. Ms. Svenson, who bought the app from Google Play, said Google shared her personal information with YCDroid, the app's developer. Ms. Svenson brought the case several months after Australian developer Dan Nolan blogged that Google automatically shares app buyers' personal information with developers. His post drew headlines, but Google said at the time it intentionally designed its platform to enable app purchasers to buy them directly from developers. The privacy policy for Google Wallet said the company may disclose information that is necessary to process transactions. Google initially contended it was necessary to share users' data, because the company doesn't process the purchase. (In 2014, Google revised its practices.) Ms. Svenson alleged that Google broke its contract by disclosing her personal information to a third party. Judge Freeman initially threw out the lawsuit, ruling that Ms. Svenson hadn't shown that she was injured by the alleged breach of contract. Ms. Svenson subsequently revised her complaint to include allegations that Google lessened the value of her personal information by sharing it with YCDroid. She added that there is a "robust market" for that type of data, and that she -- and other app purchasers -- were deprived of the ability to sell their data themselves. Last year, Judge Freeman said that Ms. Svenson's allegations about the value of her data were sufficient to warrant further proceedings in the case. Ms. Svenson now is asking to be able to proceed on behalf of a class of users who made app purchases of less than $300 between March 1, 2012 and April 30, 2014. The proposed $300 limit stems from Google's "varied" policies regarding purchases over that figure, according to the court papers. Judge Freeman is slated to hold a hearing about the matter on Aug. 24. Last year, U.S. District Court Magistrate Paul Grewal in San Jose dismissed a separate lawsuit that also alleged Google violated app purchasers' privacy by sending their names to developers. Judge Grewal said the consumers couldn't proceed with their case because they didn't allege they were harmed by Google. GRS MANAGEMENT: "Pena" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ Enrique Pena, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. GRS Management Associates, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Joseph Gilbert, individually, and Mark J. Quinn, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 16-010438-CA-01, was removed from 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv- 22005-RNS to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. GRS is a full-service property management company delivering property management, financial management, and administrative services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP, Suite 2150 100 S.E. 2nd Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 808 2100 Facsimile: (305) 808 2101 E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Young" Suit in D. Ariz. ------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Guglielmo & Associates PLLC. The case is captioned Rosalind Young, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Guglielmo & Associates PLLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01755-DLR (D. Ariz., June 3, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Douglas L Rayes. Guglielmo and Associates is a consumer debt collection law firm located in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq. Joseph Michael Panvini, Esq. Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC 5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388 8898 Facsimile: (866) 565 1327 E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com tclg@consumerlawinfo.com HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Sued in N.C. Over Proposed Sale to Annaly ------------------------------------------------------------- William Friedman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hatteras Financial Corp., David W. Berson, Benjamin M. Hough, Michael R. Hough, Ira G. Kawaller, Vicki McElreath, Jeffrey D. Miller, William V. Nutt, Jr., Thomas D. Wren, Annaly Capital Management, Inc., and Ridgeback Merger Sub Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-00533 (M.D.N.C., May 26, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Hatteras Financial Corp., seeking to enjoin the proposed transaction pursuant to which Hatteras Financial Corp. will be acquired by Annaly Capital Management, Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Hatteras Financial Corp. is an externally managed mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT) that invests in single-family residential mortgage real estate assets. Annaly Capital Management, Inc. is a mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT) listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary W. Jackso, Esq. RABON LAW FIRM, PLLC 225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 377-6680 Facsimile: (704) 208-4645 - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 588-5516 E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com HSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Pass" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Automated Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas Pass, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HSI Financial Services, LLC f/k/a HSI Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01704-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. HSI Financial Services, LLC offers solutions for managing and resolving healthcare accounts receivable. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifton Dorsen, Esq. James Marvin Feagle, Esq. SKAAR AND FEAGLE Suite B, 2374 Main Street Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373-1978 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq. Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com krisskaar@aol.com HUNTINGTON HONDA: "Schmitt" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Schmitt, Steve Millard, and Aridio De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Huntington Honda, Inc.; N.R. Automotive, Inc.; Westchester Autoplex, Inc.; Don Lia; Patricia Curtin; Dominick Lia; and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Huntington Honda, Inc.; N.R. Automotive, Inc.; Westchester Autoplex, Inc.; Don Lia; Patricia Curtin; and/or Dominick Lia, the Defendant, Case No. 604149/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover compensation, including commissions and wages, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. According to the complaint, beginning in June 2010 and continuing through the present, the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of deducting from Plaintiffs' wages by wrongfully calculating the amount of commission payments owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees in violation of New York labor law. Huntington Honda is premier Honda dealer providing a comprehensive inventory. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 lambinder@vandallp.com INGRAM MICRO: Faces "Scheiner" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Scheiner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ingram Micro Inc., Howard I. Atkins, David Barnes, Leslie S. Heisz, John R. Ingram, Dale R. Laurance, Linda Fayne Levinson, Scott Mcgregor, Carol Mills, Alain Monie, Wade Oosterman, HNA Group Co., Ltd., Tianjin Tianhai Investment Company, Ltd., and GCL Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 1238 (Del. Ch. Ct., May 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to satisfy their fiduciary duty to maximize stockholder value, specifically by failing to take affirmative actions to explore all strategic options available in order to obtain the highest possible price for stockholders. HNA Group Co., Ltd. is a conglomerate founded in 1993 as a local aviation transportation operator. Tianjin Tianhai Investment Company, Ltd. is a Shanghai-based company principally engaged in marine transportation services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com kkeenan@weisslawllp.com LAIDLAW & COMPANY: "Noel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Noel IV, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals v. Laidlaw & Company, Ltd., Case No. 1:16-cv-03975 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Laidlaw & Company, Ltd. provides investment banking and wealth management services to institutions and individuals in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Walker G. Harman Jr., Esq. Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. THE HARMAN FIRM, LLP. 220 Fifth Ave., Suite 900 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 425-2600 E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com erivera@theharmanfirm.com LEGACY AIR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Bynum" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Bynum and Keith Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legacy Air, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC621716 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Legacy Air, Inc. is a construction, commercial and residential heating or air conditioning maintenance services company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 LONE STAR: Appeals From N.D. Texas Ruling in "Campos" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Lone Star Wheel Components, Incorporated, and Jerry L. Coffey filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Acencion Calderon Campos v. Lone Star Wheel Components Inc, et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-4088, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Acencion Calderon Campos v. Lone Star Wheel Components Inc, et al., Case No. 16-10737, in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee Acencion Adolfo Calderon Campos, and All Others Similarly Situated Under 29 USC 216(B), also known as Adolfo Calderon, also known as Campos Acencion, is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com Defendants-Appellants Lone Star Wheel Components, Incorporated, and Jerry L. Coffey are represented by: R. Rogge Dunn, Esq. CLOUSE DUNN, L.L.P. 1201 Elm Street Renaissance Tower Dallas, TX 75270-2140 Telephone: (214) 220-3888 E-mail: rogge@clousedunn.com M LOPEZ: Faces "Carreto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Carreto, Douglas Giovanni Mejia, Reilyn Taveras, Alvin J. Tavarez, Jose Estevez Tortbio, Lorenzo Cabrera Gomez, Julio C. Tavarez, and Juan Suero Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M. Lopez Contracting Corp., Mattias Lopez, Maryann Ribaudo, and John Doe a/k/a Charlie, Case No. CV162680 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Puja Sharma, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 E-mail: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com MACY'S INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Merchandise Label --------------------------------------------------------------- Zohreh Farhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Macy's, Inc., Macy's West Stores, Inc. and Bloomingdale's, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02850 (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2016), arises from the Defendants' deceptive and misleading labeling and marketing of merchandise they sell at their retail stores, including outlet stores, in California and throughout the United States. The Defendants operate 900 stores in 45 states under names including Macy's, Bloomingdales' and Bloomindale's Outlets, with approximately 132 stores in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Green, Esq. James Robert Noblin, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com - and - Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. GILMAN LAW LLP 8951 Bonita Beach Rd, S.E., Suite 525 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone: (239)221-8301 Facsimile: (239)790-5150 E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com MAGNELL ASSOCIATE: Faces "Aceves" Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Magnell Associate, Inc. d/b/a Newegg.com, Newegg, Inc., and Does 1-50. The case is captioned Darline J. Aceves, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Magnell Associate, Inc. d/b/a Newegg.com, Newegg, Inc., and Does 1-50, Case No. BC621725 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2016). Magnell Associate, Inc. is a computer wholesale and manufacturer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis F. Moss, Esq. 15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 773-0323 E-mail: dennisfmoss@yahoo.com MCLANE SUNEAST: "Fenton" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Fenton, an individual; on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. McLane/Suneast, Inc., a Texas corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1605767, was removed from San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The Central District Court assigned Case No. 5:16-cv- 01162 to the proceeding. Originated in 1985 in Lakeland, Florida, McLane Suneast is engaged in the convenience store business. The Plaintiff appears pro se. MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid for Class Certification in "Huebner" Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned LEVI HUEBNER on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated customers, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendant, No. 14 Civ. 6046 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Huebner alleged that Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) and Midland Funding, LLC (MF) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by attempting to collect a $131 debt Huebner allegedly owed Verizon. Huebner argued that the defendants' attempt to seek an explanation from him when they marked his debt as disputed, as well as their failure to report his debt as disputed, were both illegal. Judge Cogan, however, found that the undisputed facts show the defendants did nothing wrong in attempting to collect Huebner's debt, even though Huebner attempted to entrap the defendants into committing an FDCPA violation, and that the defendants did report the debt as disputed. A full-text copy of Judge Cogan's June 6, 2016 memorandum decision and order is available at https://is.gd/hYcWkj from Leagle.com. Levi Huebner, Plaintiff, represented by Gustavo Bruckner -- gfbruckner@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jacob T. Fogel, Jacob T. Fogel, Jayne A. Goldstein -- jagoldstein@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Leopold Gross, Law Offices of Leopold Gross, Perry Gattegno, Steven Goldman, Steven Goldman & Elie C. Poltorak -- elie@poltoraklaw.com -- Poltorak PC. Midland Credit Management, Inc, Defendant, represented by Matthew Brady Johnson -- mbjohnson@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Andrew M. Schwartz -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin & Richard David Lane, Jr. -- rdlane@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Midland Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Brady Johnson, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin & Andrew M. Schwartz, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. MIDLAND FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Filgueiras" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Josefa Filgueiras, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-03037-ES-JAD (D.N.J., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants operate a financial services company headquartered at 8755 Aero Dr, San Diego, CA 92123. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com MILWAUKEE COUNTY: "Ruehs" Suit Seeks Compensation Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Cheryl Ruehs, 467 Herford Drive Wales, WI 53183, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Courthouse 901 N. 9th Street, Room 105 Milwaukee, WI 53233, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00657 (E.D. Wisc., June 3, 2016), seeks compensation for all uncompensated work and other forms of relief including all penalties, liquidated damages, and other damages permitted by law; all other forms of relief permitted by law; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained unlawful policies of willfully not compensating hourly for all work performed and not compensating hourly employees for minimum wage and overtime by maintaining policies that, among other things, (1) failed to pay Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated, for all hours, outside their regularly scheduled hours, that were reported on supplemental timesheets and overtime reports, and (2) failed to pay for unpaid meal periods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq. Erin F. Medeiros, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 West Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Tel: (414) 271 4500 Fax: (414) 271 6308 E-mail: nde@previant.com efm@previant.com MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Faces "Nemes" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn. The case is captioned Aaron Nemes, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, and Tamar Muss, the Plaintiff, v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02861 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016). Mullooly, Jeffrey is debt collection agency in New York or New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791 4400 Facsimile: (516) 791 4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com NANOSPHERE INC: Sued in Illinois Over Proposed Sale to Luminex -------------------------------------------------------------- Stourbridge Investments LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Erik Holmlin, Gene Cartwright, Jeff Randall, Kristopher Wood, Michael McGarrity, Michael J. Ward, Nanosphere, Inc., Luminex Corporation, Commodore Acquisition, Case No. 2016CH07228 (Ill. Ch. Ct., May 26, 2016), arising out of the Defendants' decision to sell Nanosphere, Inc. to Luminex Corporation at an inadequate and for an unfair price following a grossly unfair process. Nanosphere, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets molecular diagnostic tests that are designed to detect diseases earlier in patients. Luminex Corporation operates a biotechnology company based in Austin, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Facsimile: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Edward W. Miller, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER 821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com edmilleresq@aol.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Evans" Class Suit Removed to Idaho Dist. Ct ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Richard Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Standard Guaranty Insurance, American Security Insurance, and Harwood Service Company, LLC, Case No. CV16-098, was removed from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of State of Idaho to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00215-BLW to the proceeding. The complaint alleges violation of the Truth in Lending Act, violation of the Idaho Racketeering Act, violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC provides residential mortgage loan services in the United States and consists of Nationstar Morgtage and Solutionstar, a business which provides technology and data enhanced solutions to the real estate market and companies engaged in the origination and servicing of mortgage loans. Standard Guaranty Insurance operates an insurance company headquartered at 260 Interstate N Cir SE, Atlanta, GA 30339. American Security Insurance operates an insurance company headquartered at 5518 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60639. Harwood Service Company, LLC operates a mortgage loan services company located in Lewisville, Texas. The Defendant is represented by: Kelly Greene McConnell, Esq. GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 601 West Bannock Street P.O. Box 2720 Boise, ID 83701-2720 Telephone: (208) 388-1200 Facsimile: (208) 388-1300 E-mail: litigation@givenspursley.com - and - John B. Sullivan, Esq. Erik Kemp, Esq. Mary Catherine Sullivan Kamka, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 E-mail: jbs@severson.com ek@severson.com mkk@severson.com NEW BUFFALO CORP: Hopper Appeals From W.D. Ky. Ruling ----------------------------------------------------- Shon Hopper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit entitled Shon Hopper v. New Buffalo Corporation, Case No. 4:12-cv- 00100, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro. The lawsuit arises from product liability claims. The appellate case is captioned as Shon Hopper v. New Buffalo Corporation, Case No. 16-5776, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON 19 N. Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 821-0656 Facsimile: (270) 825-1163 E-mail: john@wbmllp.com Defendant-Appellee New Buffalo Corporation, doing business as NB Corp., is represented by: Norman Elliott Harned, Esq. W. Greg Harvey, Esq. HARNED, BACHERT & MCGEHEE P.O. Box 1270 Bowling Green, KY 42102 Telephone: (270) 782-3938 E-mail: nharned@kerricklaw.com gharvey@kerricklaw.com NORMANDIE CLUB: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Magana, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Normandie Club Incorporated and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC621737 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Normandie Club Incorporated operates an entertaining and gambling casino in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOERMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 552-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 NORTHSHORE PHYSICIAN: Faces Class Action Over Lien on HMO Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman injured in a 2012 car crash has launched a class action lawsuit against the Evanston-based doctors' practice which provided her care following the crash, claiming the physicians wrongly slapped a lien on the damages she might be paid by the other driver involved in the crash, and has done the same to others like her in the hope of collecting more than they should under the terms of the contracts the doctors hold with HMO plan providers. Plaintiff Barbara Niehus, described as a resident of Cook County, filed her complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against NorthShore Physician Associates Inc., a group which formerly did business as NorthShore University Health System Medical Group. State records indicate the president of NPA is Gerald "J.P." Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher serves as chief operating officer at NorthShore University Health System, according to the health system's website. Ms. Niehus' lawsuit also named debt collection company First Recovery Group, of St. Peter, Mo., as a defendant in the action. Ms. Niehus is represented in the lawsuit by attorney Daniel A. Edelman, and the firm of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin, of Chicago. According to the complaint, Ms. Niehus is a participant in the HMO Illinois health insurance plan offered through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois. The complaint said she had selected the NorthShore Physician group as her primary care provider, under the terms of her HMO plan. Further, the complaint said she believes NPA and Blue Cross have a contract, common under such HMO plans, under which Blue Cross pays NPA an agreed set monthly fee, rather than fees for services rendered for patients covered by HMO Illinois. And Ms. Niehus' complaint said the terms of her plan under HMO Illinois also stipulate that, should she require medical care because she became ill or injured because of the actions or negligence of another person, such as in a car crash, Blue Cross is entitled to collect reimbursements from the other person for expenses paid for their insured's medical care. Further, the plan's terms did not allow heath care providers, like NPA, to pursue patients covered by HMO Illinois for further payment beyond what Blue Cross paid them. In 2012, Ms. Niehus said she was involved in a traffic crash, and suffered injuries. She said those injuries were treated at NPA and through other medical specialists not affiliated with NPA, but approved by Blue Cross. The lawsuit said Ms. Niehus said she believed NPA was fully paid for the care she received under the terms of her HMO plan. However, in January 2016, Ms. Niehus said she received a letter from First Recovery Group, asserting it was collecting nearly $13,000 the physicians' practice claimed it was owed for "medical benefits" provided to Ms. Niehus. The letter demanded payment and asserted the debt collector would put a lien on Ms. Niehus for a share of whatever she might collect in court from the other driver involved in the crash. Ms. Niehus said that lien is "inconsistent with the HMO Illinois medical benefits plan in which (she) was enrolled at the time of the accident," as Blue Cross, "and not NPA, had the right to recover medical payments from" the other driver. The lawsuit said Ms. Niehus believes Blue Cross "did recover the amounts it claimed to have paid for medical services provided to treat (Niehus') injuries." Her lawsuit said she believes NPA has similarly routinely placed liens on others like her, "because they believe that they will recover more by placing a lien on the patient's tort recovery than they received as payments" under agreements with HMO plan providers. The complaint specifically alleged NPA and First Recovery violated the HMO contract, and committed consumer fraud. The lawsuit asked the judge to approve two classes of plaintiffs. The first would include all HMO Illinois members who have similarly faced liens brought by NPA in similar cases; the second would include those from whom First Recovery has demanded payment for medical services, which should have been the obligation of a medical group under the terms of a HMO plan. The classes would stretch back 10 years, the lawsuit said. The complaint said Ms. Niehus and her attorneys believe the class could include as many as 50 people. Ms. Niehus has requested the court issue an injunction barring NPA and First Recovery from continuing the alleged activity, and award unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees. P.F. CHANGS: Bid for Voluntary Dismissal of "Phillips" Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ANNA MARIE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00344-RMW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to the plaintiff and without prejudice as to the putative class. Judge Whyte, however, denied the plaintiff's motion to deny costs to defendant and ordered that the defendant may submit a bill of costs in accordance with Civil Local Rule 54-1. A full-text copy of Judge Whyte's June 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/vOjspS from Leagle.com. In the class action lawsuit, Anna Marie Phillips alleged that P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. discriminated against her and other customers with celiac disease or gluten allergies or intolerance. On April 27, 2016, Phillips filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, stating that for personal and private reasons, she is unable to proceed with the litigation. Phillips asserted that the case is meritorious despite her inability to move forward. Because Phillip's counsel is unable to find a substitute class representative at the time, Phillips requested that the action be dismissed with prejudice as to her and without prejudice as to the putative class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Phillips asserted that P.F. Chang's will suffer no prejudice from the dismissal. Additionally, Phillips requested that the court deny attorneys' fees and costs to the defendant because there is no threat that she will reinstitute the action after it is dismissed with prejudice as to her. Anna Marie Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Joshua Orshansky, CounselOne, PC & Justin Kachadoorian, CounselOne, PC. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael K. Grimaldi, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Jon Peter Kardassakis, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. PELLA CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. of "Naparala" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David C. Norton denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned TED NAPARALA, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant, Nos. 2:14-mn-00001-DCN, 2:14-cv-03465-DCN (D.S.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Norton's June 3, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/B293WI from Leagle.com. Ted Naparala, Sr., who had previously purchased Pella Corporation's ProLine and Architect Series windows, filed the action against Pella in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on May 20, 2014, bringing claims for: (1) violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (2) negligence; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) fraudulent concealment; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) violation of the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); and (9) declaratory relief. Ted Naparala, Sr, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn Swift and graft, pro hac vice, Scott A George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss, Daniel K Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Matthew E Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason, pro hac vice & Jeffrey A Leon -- jeff@qulegal.com -- Quantum Legal. Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@faegrebd.com -- Faegre, Baker Law Firm - Minneapolis Office, pro hac vice, Michael Tucker Cole -- mike.cole@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Kevin L Morrow -- kevin.morrow@faegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, Mark J Winebrenner -- joe.winebrenner@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels & Shane A Anderson -- shane.anderson@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels. PELLA CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. of "Romig" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David C. Norton denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned JOHN ROMIG, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant, Nos. 2:14-mn-00001-DCN, 2:14-cv-00433-DCN (D. S.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Norton's June 3, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/doufPa from Leagle.com. Plaintiff contends that Pella's Architect Series and Designer Series aluminumclad casement windows manufactured from 1997-2007 suffer from a common defect -- an "inadequate water management system" -- and that this defect is exacerbated by inadequate application of wood preservative to the Windows. PERSHING LLC: "Ochoa" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------- Judith Ochoa, Wendy P. Eckert, and Brenda Gold, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pershing LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02501, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01485-N to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. David C Godbey. Pershing provides global financial solutions to advisors, asset managers, broker-dealers, and family offices. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com The Defendant is represented by: Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor New York, NY 10105-0106 Telephone: (212) 548 2167 E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com PETROBRAS: Prosecutor Goes After Three Senators Tied to Scandal --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Rapoza, writing for Forbes.com, reports that Brazil's judiciary is not giving up on going after the politicians who helped bring a once mighty oil giant to its knees. On June 7, Brazilian media reported that the country's General Prosecutor, Rodrigo Janot, had asked the Supreme Court to arrest three senators tied to the Petrobras scandal. All three were considered allies of the recently deposed Workers' Party and are members of the big tent Democratic Movement Party. The Supreme Court has not yet responded to the call, but the move shows the investigations into Petrobras are ongoing and heating up. This is a healthy sign for a country that is plagued with political paralysis. Brazil's biggest oil firm was the source of a decades-old scandal that had billionaire private sector firms colluding with the ruling Workers' Party and other members of the coalition government to rig countries and garner bribes for political campaigns. The scandal eventually led to the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, who was chairwoman of the beleaguered oil firm up until 2010 when she assumed the presidency. The three senators were asked to step down following recently revealed phone conversations showing their interest to remove Ms. Rousseff from power in hopes of roadblocking the Petrobras charges against them and their peers. The threesome include career politician and Brazil's first unelected leader post- dictatorship Jose Sarney; Senate leader Renan Calheiros and former Budget Minister Romero Juca. Mr. Janot also asked for former House Speaker Eduardo Cunha to be arrested until a trial date can be set. He is accused of laundering over $5 million in Petrobras bribe money into a Swiss bank account. He denies it. But Swiss bank authorities have confirmed the accounts in his family's name. News broke on June 7, but Mr. Janot had reportedly asked justice Teori Zavascki, the Supreme Court judge in charge of politicians facing Petrobras-related crimes, to arrest all four at some point, according to Globo newspaper in Rio de Janeiro. Someone inside Mr. Janot's office leaked that information to the press, which is sure to tick off those in the justice department and congress who have grown wary of leaks. In March, a leaked phone call between Dilma and her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from someone close to the civil investigations set off a firestorm of events. Lula was rounded up by Federal Police and called in for questioning, galvanizing the left in support of Ms. Rousseff, which at the time was abysmal. Some 68% supported impeachment in March, down to 58% in June according to polling firms Datafolha and Ibope. The Lula leak took the ex-president out of the hands of Sergio Moro, the federal judge handling the Petrobras civil trials, and handed him over to Judge Zavascki. That's kept Lula safe from Moro, who has been rounding up A-list white collar criminals for over a year now. Cunha orchestrated the impeachment against Ms. Rousseff in the lower house. Ms. Rousseff was impeached for breaking the budget law, which is considered a crime of fiscal responsibility under the constitution. However, despite Ms. Rousseff blatant bludgeoning of fiscal accounts without congressional approval, no members of congress complained about it when given their reasons for impeachment. Moreover, leaked phone conversations are focused firmly on stopping judicial momentum on Petrobras. For her part, Ms. Rousseff is also under investigation by Judge Zavascki for using Petrobras money to fund her 2014 re- election campaign. There is a chance that if Brazilian politicians are stripped of their mandates they could be called in to testify or even be held liable in the U.S. shareholder lawsuits against Petrobras. The first case goes to trial on Sept. 19 in New York. At least a half dozen U.S. states are part of a class action against the company for misrepresenting its financials over the past five years. Part of that misrepresentation includes the acquisition of the Pasadena Refining System in Texas. Ms. Rousseff was chairwoman of the board and reportedly authorized payment three-times greater than the market price. Most of the money was laundered. Ms. Rousseff denies responsibility. U.S. lawyers say they are considering suing Brazil politicians if they have been found guilty in Brazil and stripped of the impunity granted elected officials. "We are seeking damages in the tens of billions," Jeremy Lieberman, lead counsel of Pomerantz in New York says. If Petrobras settles out of court, it will likely be the greatest bounty ever to shareholders in a class action. Enron delivered the highest yet at $7.2 billion for misleading investors about its businesses and assets. There is no date yet for Ms. Rousseff's Senate hearing. Brazilian prosecutor Mr. Janot stormed onto the Petrobras plot line last year when he named names. Known as "Janot's List", it listed 48 congressional leaders he accused of taking bribes, based on the testimony and police inquiries of nearly a dozen lobbyists and construction magnates that were called in for questioning over the last year by Brazil's Federal Police. Of the 48 listed, six were from the ruling Workers' Party and seven were from the Democratic Movement Party. The rest were from smaller allied parties like the Progressive Party. Neither Temer or Ms. Rousseff were on the list. PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing or NOrcalRecord, reports that a Fresno County woman alleges she is still owed wages from her former employer. Lauren Mathein filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on Jan. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against Pier 1 Imports Inc.; Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc. and Does 1 through 10 alleging violation of labor codes, unlawful business practices and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between September 2014 and August 2015, she was not paid all of her earned wages at the legal rate at the end of her employment. The plaintiff holds Pier 1 Imports Inc.; Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc. and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly did not provide itemized pay statements, failed to record all time worked and other counts. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory damages, economic and special damages, all unpaid wages plus liquidated damages, permanent injunction against the defendants and restitution, interest, all legal fees and any other relief as this court deems just. She is represented by Stanley D. Saltzman of Marlin & Saltzman LLP in Agoura Hills. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case number 1:16-cv-00087-DAD-SAB PREMIER KINGS: Faces "Hardy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Hardy, Tamara Neely, and Rickey Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Premier Kings, Inc. d/b/a Burger King, Case No. 7:16-cv-00878-JH (N.D. Ala., May 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Premier Kings, Inc. owns and operates restaurant in Northern District of Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Jent, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS & QUINN, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 E-mail: kjent@wigginschilds.com PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: "Graham" Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Denise Graham, on her own behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Case No. 16-002912-CI, was removed from the Pinellas County Florida to the U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-01324-JSM-UAM to the proceeding. The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. offers treatment & care to those dealing with alcohol & drug addiction, methadone addiction & adolescent behavioral problems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Marc Reed Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 N Franklin St Fl 7 Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Grant David Petersen, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 100 N Tampa St Ste 3600 Tampa, FL 33602-5867 Telephone: (813) 289-1247 Facsimile: (813) 289-6530 E-mail: grant.petersen@ogletreedeakins.com QUALITY PLUMBING: "Kiss" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Kiss Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Quality Plumbing Solutions LLC and Brian Ross, Case No. 0:16-cv-61130-UU (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a company that provides plumbing services to residential customers throughout the State of Florida, including in Broward County and Palm Beach County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450 Doral, FL 33166 Telephone: (561) 299-3703 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com RICK'S FRONT: "Summers" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Summers on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rick's Front Door Refinishing, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01563 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, and for retaliation brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post- judgment interest for Defendant's willful failure to pay overtime wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants. The Defendant offers wood and fiberglass painting and Refinishing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Williams, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111 Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (832) 230 4125 Facsimile: (832) 230 5130 E-mail: joe@joewilliamslaw.com RIP CURL: Faces "Candelario" Class Suit in C. Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Rip Curl, Inc. The case is captioned Plaintiff Lucia Candelario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rip Curl, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-00963 (C.D. Cal., May 25, 2016). Rip Curl, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer, and retailer of surfing sportswear. Lucia Candelario is a pro se plaintiff. SAINT-GOBAIN: Southern NH Residents Voice Frustrations at Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Houghton, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that residents infuriated about the water contamination problem in southern New Hampshire unleashed their frustration during a meeting on June 6 with representatives from a law firm considering taking legal action. "This is an environmental crisis, and we have all been damaged and violated," said Charles Mower of Merrimack. The June 6 meeting, hosted by Weitz & Luxenberg law firm of New York, attracted about 100 citizens at Southern New Hampshire University concerned about various levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) detected in private wells and the public water supply at Merrimack Village District. Although a separate law firm in Nashua has already filed a class action lawsuit against Saint-Gobain in connection with the water contamination, Weitz & Luxenberg and environmentalist Erin Brockovich are investigating the problem as well and are exploring additional legal options. "As you know, it is not only in New Hampshire, it is all around the Northeast and the country," Robin Greenwald, head of the law firm's Environmental and Consumer Protection Unit, said of PFOA. Ms. Greenwald said her firm was present in New Hampshire to learn information from residents, hear their worries and collect data. Private wells have detected PFOA contamination in Merrimack, Litchfield, Bedford and Amherst. The Merrimack Village District has also detected PFOA in its public water supply, which is distributed to 25,000 customers. About 300 homes within the local communities are being provided bottled water as a result of the water contamination issue. "I am concerned that all of the attention is going to the private wells," said Latasha Konopka of Merrimack, who uses Merrimack Village District public water and is worried about the health implications associated with PFOA. Another woman who lives near Turkey Hill Road in Merrimack said she decided to get her blood tested and it revealed high levels of PFOA. The woman, who declined to provide her name at the advice of her attorney, said she has been using three antibiotics because of an intestinal bacterial overgrowth. "All of you should be demanding that blood testing is free. The state should be paying for it," said attorney Jared O'Connor -- joconnor@shaheengordon.com -- of Shaheen and Gordon law firm, who assisted with the June 6 meeting. High levels of PFOA Ms. Greenwald, whose law firm filed a class action lawsuit in Hoosick Falls, N.Y., because of water contamination near a Saint- Gobain facility there, said the highest level of PFOA reported in southern New Hampshire is about 1,600 parts per trillion in Merrimack. The state has issued an emergency advisory of 70 ppt. "There are some areas with extremely high levels of PFOA," she said. She explained that property owners, residents and businesses can get compensated for property loss and medical problems associated with water contamination -- especially if the source of contamination is confirmed. "I am not an alarmist. I don't know to the extent this is impacting the communities here," said Ms. Greenwald, explaining there are illnesses linked with PFOA, a chemical once used to make Teflon. Kim Olasz of Merrimack said he worked at Saint-Gobain for 18 years until last summer. He said he previously raised concerns about disposal practices at the plant. The spotlight is certainly on Saint-Gobain, agreed Greenwald, who said regulators are likely visiting every Saint-Gobain plant in the country investigating this matter. According to the state Department of Environmental Services, the Merrimack Saint-Gobain plant was sampling its own water when it discovered low levels of PFOA in February. "Saint-Gobain voluntarily went out and looked for (perfluorooctanoic acid) at their Merrimack facility based on situations in New York and Vermont, and were very quick to share those results with the state," James Martin, public information officer with the New Hampshire DES, said in March. Saint-Gobain produces polymer products for the energy, electronics, aerospace and automobile industries. "We don't know what is going to happen. We are afraid we are all going to get stuck with the price tag," said Mr. Mower, founder of Merrimack 4 AWL (air, water and land). He criticized the Merrimack Village District, saying it is an incompetent steward of the local water system. Mower said DES officials have known there was PFOA leaving the smokestacks at Saint-Gobain for more than a decade. DES representatives have said that as a result of new air monitoring technology that allowed for the detection of PFOA at lower levels, state regulators worked with Saint-Gobain in 2006 to reduce PFOA air emissions at the company's Merrimack facility. SANDISK CORPORATION: Appeal Filed in "Giuliano" Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Alfred T. Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz Estate, CPM Electronics, Inc., E.S.E. Electronics and Mflash, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Giuliano v. SanDisk Corporation, Case No. 4:10-cv-02787-SBA, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of antitrust laws. The appellate case is captioned as Giuliano v. SanDisk Corporation, Case No. 16-2166, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 26, 2016, Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that in the Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action, the court has granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a named plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims. On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 22, 2015, the District Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once the class notice has been approved and the period for class members to opt out has expired. After the opt-out period expired, the Company renewed its motion for summary judgment. On April 29, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs-Appellants Alfred T. Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz Estate, CPM Electronics, Inc., and E.S.E. Electronics are represented by: Jason Scott Hartley, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com Plaintiff-Appellant MFLASH, INC. Steven Frank Benz, Esq. KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC 1615 M Street, NW Sumner Square Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: sbenz@khhte.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Raoul D. Kennedy, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 525 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 470-4550 E-mail: RKennedy@skadden.com SAR CALIFORNIA: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- Giselle Perez individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved, the Plaintiffs, v. Sar California Holdco, Inc., a California corporation; Sar Figueroa Food, Inc., a California corporation; Sar Fox Hills Food, Inc., a California corporation; Sar Valley Plaza Food, Inc., a California corporation; Sarku Slnordhoff, Inc., a California corporation; Sarku SL Nordhoff Food, Inc., a California corporation; Sarku Japan, a business entity of unknown form; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants Case No. BC622660 (Cal. Super. Ct, June 3, 2016), was filed against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to maintain required records. The complaint seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including, but not limited to, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Defendants maintain offices and facilities and conduct business in, and engage in illegal payroll practices or policies in, the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The Defendants are engaged in the food business industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia Khalili, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531 1901 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Yvonne Leyva, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group and Does 1-50, Case No. BC621718 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. Southern California Permanente Medical Group operates a medical center located at 7373 West Ln, Stockton, CA 95210. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis F. Moss, Esq. 15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 773-0323 E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com - and - Ari E. Moss, Esq. Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS 15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 982-2984 E-mail: ari@arimoss.com jeremy@arimoss.com STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed Cold Drinks, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Forouzesh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Starbucks Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC621572 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), alleges that Starbucks engaged in the practice of misrepresenting that its cold drinks have more fluid ounces than it actually delivers and charges the customer for. Starbucks Corporation is the largest coffee retailer in the world, with more than 23,000 stores in over 60 countries and with over 3,000 stores in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Farahi, Esq. Raymond M. Collins, Esq. FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 230 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 774-4500 Facsimile: (424) 295-0557 STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Thorner" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sidney Thorner and Arlene Thorner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Statebridge Company, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-03020-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Statebridge Company, LLC is a mortgage loan servicer. A portion of the business involves the collection of debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Gentilcore, Esq. DIEHL LAW LLC PO Box 43098 Philadelphia, PA 19129 Telephone: (267) 614-6515 E-mail: jogentilcore@gmail.com SUBARU: Class Action Settlement Expected to Be Finalized in July ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Choate, writing for PAhomepage, reports that Subaru owners may be part of a class action lawsuit and entitled to a settlement, but is that the best option? PAhomepage's I-Team caught up with Schuylkill County Realtor Helen Miernicki, who told the agency a Lemon Law case is the way to go. For the past two years, Helen said her 2014 Subaru Forester was guzzling synthetic oil. Those receipts were adding up, and the inconvenience was impacting her job as a realtor. Ms. Miernicki said Subaru gave her every excuse in the book, even blaming her driving habits and telling her to keep oil in her trunk. This case affects more than 665,000 Subaru owners with Crosstrek, Forester, Legacy, Outback, and Impreza models from 2011 to 2015. A pending settlement would give owners of those vehicles an extended warranty for oil-related problems. But Ms. Miernicki opted out of the class action case and filed a Lemon Law complaint on the advice of her Attorney Robert Silverman. If you're part of this class action case, you have until June 13th to opt out. If you do nothing, you will automatically become part of the settlement, which will prevent you from filing a Lemon Law complaint. The settlement is expected to be finalized in July. SWIFT PORK: "Rocha" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Rocha, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Swift Pork Company, a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC622797 (Cal. Super Ct., June 3, 2016), seeks monetary damages, including full restitution from Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or unfair business practices, pursuant to the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and Wage Orders issued by California Industrial Welfare Commission. Swift is an American food processing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Tel.: (323) 549 9100 Facsimile: (323) 549 0101 Email: Barnes@kbarnes.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II 18520 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609 0807 E-mail: SahagII@aol.com TEXAS, USA: District Court Ruling in "Steward" Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Greg Abbott, Kyle L. Janek and Jon Weizenbaum filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Eric Steward, et al v. Greg Abbott, et al., Case No. 5:10-CV-1025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio. Greg Abbott is the Governor of the state of Texas. Kyle L. Janek, M.D., is the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. Jon Weizenbaum is the Commissioner of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services. The appellate case is captioned as Eric Steward, et al. v. Greg Abbott, et al., Case No. 16-90019, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by: Casey A. Burton, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-3533 E-mail: casey.burton@sidley.com - and - Garth Anthony Corbett, Esq. ADVOCACY, INCORPORATED 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard Austin, TX 78757-1024 Telephone: (512) 454-4816 E-mail: gcorbett@advocacyinc.org - and - Deborah A. Dorfman, Esq. CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 22 Green Street Northhampton, MA 01060 Telephone: (413) 586-6024 The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by: Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Esq. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 209 W. 14th Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 936-6407 E-mail: matthew.frederick@oag.state.tx.us THERANOS INC: Sued Over Substandard Lab Policies & Procedures ------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Theranos, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-02835 (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of using substandard laboratory policies and procedures, failing to honor the promises it made about testing accuracy and quality, concealing and obscuring the truth about the invasiveness of the tests, providing inaccurate test results to patients and not correcting those results when possible after a reasonable person would understand the results were or could be erroneous, and misrepresenting the technological advances that Theranos allegedly developed. Theranos, Inc. operates a health-technology and medical- laboratory-services company based in Palo Alto, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AR 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com TOMS SHOES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nyisha Jones, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TOMS Shoes, LLC, TOMS Shoes Holdings I, TOMS Shoes Holdings II, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. ______ (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants design and manufacture shoes and apparel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Weinberger, Esq. LAYFIELD & BARRETT, APC 7135 E. Camelback, Rd. Suite 230 Scottsdale, AR 85251 Telephone: (480) 771-3602 Facsimile: (480) 771-3603 E-mail: s.weinberger@lavfieldbarrett.com - and - Bradford T. Child, Esq. CHILD & MARTON, LLP 1055 West 7TH Street, 33rd Floor Penthouse Los Angeles, CA 90017-2795 Telephone: (213) 627-3113 Facsimile: (213) 623-9237 E-mail: btchild@childmarton.com TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge in Fraud Case Tied to La Raza Council ------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome R. Corsi, writing for WND.com, reports that the federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally "The Race." U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has been criticized by Donald Trump as a "hater" appointed by President Obama who should be recused from the case, listed his membership in the "La Raza Lawyers of San Diego" on a judicial questionnaire he filled out when he was selected to be a federal judge. He was named in a brochure as a member of the selection committee for the organization's 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala. Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event. WND reported the San Diego firm paid $675,000 to the Clintons for speeches, and the firm's founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits. Get a first-hand account of the Democratic Party presidential front-runner's character in "Hillary The Other Woman." Then take action with the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project and let others know, with a bumper sticker calling for "Hillary for prosecution, not president." While critics of Trump have argued that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers' association is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, consider the following: The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of California, affiliated with the Chicano/Latino Bar Association of California. On the website of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California, at the bottom of the "Links & Affiliates Page," the National Council of La Raza is listed. The website of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is joint- listed as San Diego's Latino/Latina Bar Association. On the "endorsements" page, the combined website lists the National Council of La Raza as part of the "community," along with the Hispanic National Bar Association,, a group that emerged with a changed name from the originally formed La Raza National Lawyers Association and the La Raza National Bar Association tracing its origin back to 1971. Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicanos de Atzlan. MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a "nation of Aztlan," comprising much of the southwestern United States, including California. As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks that La Raza, Spanish for "the race," also has roots in the early 1960s with a "united front" organization, the National Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS. The group initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. In 1968, the Southwest Council of La Raza was organized with Ford Foundation funding. In 1972, the group changed its name to the National Council of La Raza and opened an office in Washington, D.C. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal Filed in 9th Circuit in "Lainer" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Marisa Lainer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Marisa Lainer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09925-BRO-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 16, 2016, the Plaintiff seeks to put an end to the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited calls to the Class members' wireless telephones. The appellate case is captioned as Marisa Lainer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16-55778, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN 324 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 E-mail: tcheung@mofo.com - and - Kelsey Marie Stricker, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite # 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5274 E-mail: KStricker@mofo.com - and - Adam Sevell, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 E-mail: adamsevell@paulhastings.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Unveils Software Improvements Amid Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Rosen, writing for, reports that tensions have been building between Uber and its drivers, especially as the ride-hailing company decreased drivers' earnings and continued to classify them as independent contractors, rather than recognizing them as employees. Drivers protested and filed two class-action lawsuits against the company. On June 6, Uber seemed to be making efforts to quell driver complaints, announcing a series of software improvements intended to improve drivers' experiences. "[We] have heard from drivers like you that there are plenty of things we can do to make driving more empowering and worth your while," wrote Uber in a blog post. "We are rolling out a number of features and rewards in more cities to help you get the most out of your time on the road." "Many drivers say they choose Uber because they want to be their own boss, set their own schedule, and get work at the touch of a button," it added. "That's the beauty of the on-demand economy: you define the work you do, it doesn't define you." rivers can soon pick up only those passengers on the way to a drivers' destination, pause the app if they need a break, and receive their earnings instantly, as well as receive pay if a passenger is more than two minutes late. The announcement signals a shift in the ever-evolving shared economy, as Uber has started to address the vulnerabilities its drivers say they are exposed to as independent contractors. The conditions experienced by Uber's workforce -- as well as those experienced by workers in other peer-to-peer services -- have created a number of outstanding labor issues. The June 6 announcement seems to be an effort on Uber's part to meet drivers halfway. Chief among the new software improvements are drivers' ability to both pick up only those passengers on their way to their own destinations and to pause the app. Although the driver destination feature has been piloted in a number of cities, drivers in a dozen more cities will be able to take advantage of it. Drivers will be able to use the feature twice a day, such as on their way to and from work. "Driver destinations is all about making it easier to fit work around your life -- not the other way around," writes Uber. The second feature serves the same end. "Need lunch or coffee or a breath of fresh air, or ready to call it a day? Now you'll be able to just hit pause -- literally -- to stop new requests from coming in while you're completing your last trip." Previously, drivers were forced to cancel user requests to be picked up. Now, drivers can simply pause the program and restart it once they're ready. Uber will pilot this feature this month. These changes, as well as several others, seem to be Uber's attempt to keep drivers happy. Two surveys of Uber drivers released this winter offered different views into drivers' satisfaction. A survey Uber conducted in December found 81 percent of drivers were satisfied with their overall experiences, and more than 90 percent were both satisfied with the flexibility their schedule offered them and their work life-balance. But an independent, amateur survey by Harry Campbell, author of the blog The Rideshare Guy, found only 48 percent of drivers were satisfied. And drivers have long battled their status as independent contractors, saying it leaves them vulnerable. Uber doesn't have to pay its drivers' insurance or Social Security, as well as other benefits such as workers' compensation or sick days. Nor do Uber employees have the right to form unions. The conflict came to a head in two class-action lawsuits Uber settled with drivers. The company has also approved a pseudo- union group that will provide some benefits to New York drivers. UGI CORP: Hawkins Appeals From C.D. California Ruling in 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Linda Hawkins and Temi Treibatch filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Linda Hawkins, et al. v. UGI Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08461-DDP-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The lawsuit arises from product liability claims. The appellate case is captioned as Linda Hawkins, et al. v. UGI Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-55796, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellants Linda Hawkins and Temi Treibatch are represented by: David E. Bower, I, Esq. BOWER LAW GROUP PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (213) 446-6652 E-mail: dbower@bowerlawgroup.com Defendants-Appellees UGI Corporation, Amerigas Propane, Inc., Amerigas Propane, L.P., and Amerigas Partners, L.P., DBA Amerigas Cylinder Exchange, is represented by: Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Telephone: (215) 963-4806 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com - and - Joseph Duffy, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2508 E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com Defendants-Appellees Ferrellgas Company, Inc., Ferrellgas, L.P., DBA Blue Rhino LLC, Ferrellgas, Inc., Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp., Ferrellgas Finance Corp. and Ferrellgas Partners, L. P., are represented by: Niall E. Lynch, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: Eniall.lynch@lw.com UNITED STATES: Faces "Jerome" Suit in Northern District Indiana --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Barack Obama, Commander in chief, United States of America and Rosa G Rios, Treasurer of the Treasury, United States of America, and any other similarly situated persons. The case is captioned Curtis Jerome v. Barack Obama, Commander in chief, United States of America and Rosa G Rios, Treasurer of the Treasury, United States of America, and any other similarly situated persons, Case No. 1:16-cv-00179-JTM-SLC (N.D. Ind., May 25, 2016). Curtis Jerome is a pro se plaintiff. UNITED STATES: Court Rules on Bids for Joinder in "Bell" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GERALD E. BELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 13-455L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith granted the motions for joinder filed by the plaintiff Joe Metz, and denied the motions for joinder filed by the plaintiffs Bell Brothers, G.P., and Gerald E. Bell and Duane V. Bell. A full-text copy of Judge Campbell-Smith's June 6, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/A0JFyw from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs own real property in the state of Texas, along the Mexican border, near the Rio Grande River. It was undisputed that defendant holds easements that entitle it to build and maintain a structure on the plaintiffs' property for the purpose of flood control. What was disputed is whether the structure built by the defendant falls within the scope of the easements it holds. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's structure is a "border fence" that falls outside the scope of the easements and thus, has effected an uncompensated taking of their property. The defendant acknowledged that the structure serves the dual purposes of flood control and border defense, but maintains that the structure nonetheless falls within the scope of the easements. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 3, 2013, in which they asserted a Fifth Amendment takings claim. On May 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed three separate motions for joinder of five additional plaintiffs under Rules 15 and 20. Plaintiff Bell Brothers, G.P. also previously filed a motion for joinder. GERALD E. BELL, DUANE V. BELL, JOE METZ, NEUHAUS & SONS, BELL BROS., Plaintiffs, represented by Roy Robert Brandys -- brandys@barronadler.com -- Barron & Adler, LLP. USA, Defendant, represented by John Pershing Tustin, U.S. Department of Justice. UNITED STATES: Evideo Owners Appeal From Ruling in Patent Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Evideo Owners, Mauro Didomenico, Douglas Buerger, Craig Linden, Realvirt LLC and Paul Barous filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Evideo Owners v. US, Case No. 1:15- cv-00413-LKG, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 1, 2015, Mauro Didomenico sued the Government over the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's controversial and recently shuttered "sensitive" patent applications program, which he says delayed patent applications and saddled filers with excessive costs. The appellate case is captioned as Evideo Owners v. US, Case No. 16-2149, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Patrick Richard Delaney, Esq. DITTHAVONG & STEINER, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 519-9951 E-mail: pdelaney@dcpatent.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: David Allen Foley, Jr., Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 307-0346 Facsimile: (202) 307-0345 E-mail: david.a.foley@usdoj.gov VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: Vehicle Emissions Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Oriti, writing for ABC, reports that Australian drivers involved in a legal dispute against Volkswagen have accused the auto giant of ignoring them. A class action is underway involving thousands of drivers, after revelations that cars were fitted with emissions cheating software. Alister Dalton, the lead applicant in the VW class action, who owns two Volkswagen cars, told PM: "You buy a vehicle on a presumption and a pretence that they've been promoted as mechanically sound, that they can do what they say they do. "The fact that now we've got possible emissions going into the atmosphere . . . you feel cheated." Mr. Dalton said he had hardly heard from the company since the software used to cheat vehicle emissions tests was uncovered last September. "We've had a couple of letters, but they're no different to probably what any other owner has received, and it's very scant information that we receive, very generic," he said. "I probably have more contact with the local dealership when I go and get my car serviced than dealing with Volkswagen Australia." The legal dispute also includes Skoda and Audi models built by the motoring giant. For the lead applicant in the Audi case, Robyn Richardson, it is the uncertainty that bothers her most. "I do have a sense of guilt about driving the vehicle that I'm driving," Ms Richardson said. "It weighs on my mind that I'm omitting these toxic fumes by driving the vehicle . . . I'm anxious for Audi to resolve this as quickly as possible." Process moving faster in United States In an "in-principle" deal with the United States Justice Department, Volkswagen has offered to buy back almost 500,000 cars there. More details are expected to be made public later this month, but the proposal also includes funding for an environmental remediation fund and compensation for car owners. Ms. Richardson, a lawyer herself, said she was not sure why Australian drivers were being treated differently. "I'm concerned about their conduct in Australia and the litigation thus far, but I'm ultimately optimistic that there will be a resolution to the matter," she said. A spokesman for Volkswagen Australia said that the situation here was different to the United States. He said the company was actively communicating with customers and working with the Government in relation to a technical solution. That solution involves updating the software free of charge to customers. The spokesman confirmed that Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda were defending the class actions and participating in the process required by the Federal Court to prepare those cases for trial. Jason Geisker from Maurice Blackburn lawyers is representing the drivers. "They're not prepared to pay any compensation, and they say they've done nothing wrong," he said. "They say they've not breached the law, and they say they have no case to answer." Lawyers meet with foreign engineers Lawyers involved in the class action met with engineers from overseas in Sydney on June 8, to canvas outstanding technical issues in the case. The "expert conferral", as it has been described by Maurice Blackburn, comes after orders from the Federal Court in April. "What they're saying now is they now only have to pass testing regimes in the laboratory," Mr. Geisker said. "Therefore on a technical argument, they're trying to suggest to consumers that once they've passed the test in the laboratory, the vehicles can operate completely differently on the open road and that there's no contravention." The issue of emissions cheating software is expected to be raised at a meeting of EU Transport Ministers underway in Luxembourg. The case in Australia will return to the Federal Court in July. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Reeves" Class Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The case is captioned Nancy Reeves, Rhonda Lorenz, Michael Wills, and Michelle Walker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01253-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 26, 2016). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore H. Chase, Esq. AUDET AND PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: tchase@audetlaw.com WAL-MART STORES: "Smith" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Myrica Smith, as proxy for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG16809707, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02832 to the proceeding. The case asserts Civil Rights Violation. The Defendants operate a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores. Myrica Smith is a pro se plaintiff. WEWORK: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------ Nathan McAlone, writing for Business Insider, reports that the National Labor Relations Board, an independent government agency tasked with investigating unfair labor practices in the US, has found "merit" in certain charges against $16 billion "co-working" startup WeWork. The charges were brought by former WeWork employee, Tara Zoumer, who alleges that she was fired after flagging potential labor violations and refusing to sign an arbitration agreement. Ms. Zoumer also filed a lawsuit against WeWork in San Francisco Superior Court, which has since been ordered into arbitration in New York. WeWork will have the opportunity to settle the matter before a formal complaint is filed by the NLRB. "The goal is always to reach a settlement that is acceptable to the charging party, the charged party, and the Agency," according to the NLRB. WeWork had until June 10 to counter. A WeWork spokesperson provided this statement to Business Insider: "This charge has no merit. Our employees are our lifeblood and we firmly believe our policies are fair and lawful." The case Ms. Zoumer worked for WeWork from March to November 2015, as an associate community manager, during which time she alleged violations of California's labor code, including a lack of overtime and meal breaks due to a misclassification. When she brought these issues up with her managers at WeWork, she was told to not talk with her coworkers about them, and then asked if she wanted to resign, Ms. Zoumer says. After Ms. Zoumer spoke with her WeWork superiors, she claims they made all US employees sign new employment documents, which included what she and her attorney characterize as an "unlawful mandatory arbitration agreement." Ms. Zoumer says she was fired by WeWork after refusing to sign this agreement, which would have waived certain rights, including her right to a class-action claim. These kinds of arbitration agreements, especially those that strip class-action rights, are controversial. The NLRB considers them to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, but there have been conflicting rulings from the courts. A person close to WeWork, who asked not to be identified discussing a legal matter, said that though the majority of federal courts were on WeWork's side -- in favor of these arbitration agreements -- this fight could eventually go to the Supreme Court because of the differences in lower court rulings. What does that mean for WeWork? "Because the settlement offered by the NLRB requires that WeWork eliminate their class waiver and arbitration agreement, I do not anticipate they will accept the settlement terms, and I expect a complaint will issue," Ms. Zoumer's attorney, Ramsey Hanafi, told Business Insider. Here is the NLRB's response to Ms. Zoumer's charges, which designates whether they were found to be with or without merit. These were included in an email to Ms. Zoumer, from NLRB Field Attorney Lelia M. Gomez: The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating the Charging Party because of her protected concerted activities, including her refusal to sign the Employer's Employment Dispute Resolution Program and Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non- Solicitation Agreement.-- MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating the Charging Party because of her protected concerted activities, including her activities attempting to enlist other employees in pursuing a wage class lawsuit.-- NO MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, when on October 21, 2015, West Coast Director Chia Donati instructed employees that they could not discuss their rights, wages, and/or other terms or conditions of employment.-- MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an Employment Dispute Resolution Program that includes a class/collective action waiver, prohibits access to the National Labor Relations Board; and includes a confidentiality provision that precludes employees from discussing their wages, hours, and or other terms/conditions of employment.-- MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by implementing an Employment Dispute Resolution Program in retaliation for the Charging Party's protected concerted activities.-- NO MERIT The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non-Solicitation Agreement that includes a confidentiality provision that classifies personnel data as proprietary information.-- MERIT. WHALENECK ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Paez" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Paez, Ramon A. Jimenez, and Rafael Luna, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Whaleneck Enterprises d/b/a The Boathouse Restaurant and Lindsay Magili, Case No. 2:16-cv- 02673-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate The Boathouse Restaurant located at 3000 Whaleneck Dr., Merrick, NY 11566. The Plaintiff is represented by: Saul D. Zabell, Esq. ZABEL & ASSOCIATES, PC 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: (631) 589-7242 Facsimile: (631) 563-7475 E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com ZACKS INVESTMENT: "Kerr" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Kerr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zacks Investment Research, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02016-00015206-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01352-GPC-BLM to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel. Zacks is an investment research firm focusing on stock research. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 623 4200 Facsimile: (858) 623 4299 E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lisa S. Yun, Esq. Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 720 8900 Facsimile: (858) 509 3691 E-mail: lyun@sheppardmullin.com spetersen@sheppardmullin.com ZEEBA ENTERPRISES: "Najera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Marcelo Najera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Zeeba Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sea Tile Cafe, Ronald Siegel, and Akbarali Himani, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04142 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages; unpaid overtime compensation; reimbursement of expenses related to unlawfully requiring Plaintiff to purchase the tools of his trade; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees. Zeeba owns and operates a restaurant known as Seattle Cafe, which employed Plaintiff as a delivery person, food preparer, and general helper/cleaner. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209 3933 Facsimile: (212) 209 7102 ZODIAC US: Sued in California Over Failure to Provide Meal Period ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Cuzick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zodiac U.S. Seat Shells, LLC, Zodiac Cabin & Structures Support, LLC, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. RG16817063 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees with meal periods, rest periods, and failure to pay premium wages for unprovided meals and rest periods. The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures airline seats headquartered in Gainesville, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com ********* 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 * * *