/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160629.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 129 Headlines 3JT ENTERPRISES: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in ARcare Suit AEG LIVE: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Complaint in "Pollard" AIRBNB: Vows to Fight Racism, Class-Action Waiver at Issue ANGELO GORDON: Shifted Beniahana's Obligation to Pay Wages APPLE INC: E-Book Price-Fixing Settlement Payouts Begin APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Trims Shasta Linen Supply's Suit BARRICK GOLD: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BASS PRO: Suit Over Discriminatory Hiring Practices Can Proceed BAY AREA RAPID: Faces "Brunker" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA BLATTNER ENERGY: Hoffman Class Certification Bid Granted in Part BNSF RAILWAY: 7th Cir. Imposes Sanction on Plaintiff's Counsel BOARD OF EQUALIZATION: Carrier Defendants Win More Time to Reply BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Conn. Over Pradaxa Safety BROCKELBANK INC: Class Certification Sought in "Lesh" Action CACH LLC: Court Won't Hear Oral Arguments on FDCPA Class Action CALIFORNIA: Judge Disallows Access to Inmate Witnesses CAREFIRST INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Chambliss" Suit CARING FOR MONTANANS: Sued Over Benefit Plans Surcharge Premiums CB1 INC: Must Defend Against "Wittman" FDCPA Suit CHASE BANK: Court Denies Objector's Motion for Fees and Award CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement of McIntyre Suit Has Initial OK CONAIR CORP: Courts Denies Class Certification in "Wilson" DELTA AIR: Wants Judge to Halt Class Action Over Baggage Fees DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Class Certified in "Nitsch" Suit EBAY INC: $1.2MM Accord in "Rosado" Case Has Final Approval EL MILAGRO: "Solorzano" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages & Relief ENAGIC USA: Class Certification Sought in "Makaron" Suit EXPEDIA INC: Travel Firms Liable for Hotel Occupancy Tax Claim FARMERS INSURANCE: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Wilson" Affirmed FINE FINISH: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Non-Payment of OT Wage FORGE: Liquidator Mulls Class Action Against Former Directors FRITO-LAY: Court Denies Preliminary Approval of "Sanchez" Accord GATEWAY FUNDING: Courts Grants Conditional Class Certification GAW MINERS: Group of Customers File Class Action GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in "Volin" Suit GENUINE TITLE: Court Narrows Claims in "Fangman" Suit GREEN TREE: Judge Sends "Buckles" Dispute to Nev. Supreme Court H2O HAIR: Court Rejects LUTPA Claim in "Biggio" Suit HALLMARK CARDS: Faces "Strougo" Suit Over Crown Media Merger HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Gets Favorable Ruling in Flooding Class Action HOBBS TRUCKING: Bid for Collective Action Certification Granted HOMEOPET LLC: Must Send Notice to Attorney General HORTONWORKS INC: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel HUDSON COUNTY: Brodowski Seeks Damages v. Community College INNERWORKINGS INC: October 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set INT'L ASSOCIATION: Doping Class Action Appeal Heads to Court INTEGRATED AIRLINES: "Haurat" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Sued Over Defective Mitral Valve Instrument ISORAY MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Lung Cancer Study Results JACKSON, MI: Settles Class Action Over Misdemeanor Case Arrests KBK SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Decertify "Chambliss" Class LANDRYS INC: "Saechao" Class Settlement Has Initial Approval LANDSCAPE GROUP: "Wilch" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA LG ELECTRONICS: Court Narrows Claims in Suit by LCD TV Buyers LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE: Court Favors Stay of Action Over Dismissal LOUISIANA CLEANING: Court Trims Claims in Misclassification Suit MDL 1566: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss MDL 1827: HannStar Must Pay $2MM for Plaintiffs' Legal Costs MDL 2159: JPML Rejects Plaintiff's Move to Vacate Order MDL 2185: Court Narrows Issues in Securities Litigation MDL 2591: Certification of 9 Corn Producer Classes Sought MDL 2617: Court Rules on Dismissal Bids MDL 2710: JPML Finds Centralization of 19 Cases Unnecessary MDL 2715: JPML Sees No Need to Centralize Litigation MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: "Pedro" Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. MICHIGAN: Huron Valley Male Corrections Officers File Class Suit MICROSOFT INC: Pro-Sys Permitted to Subpoena Former Apple Exec NANOSPHERE INC: "Beveridge" Suit Enjoins Merger with Luminex NAT'L HOCKEY: Two Ex-Sabres Players Join Concussion Class Action NATIONAL MILK: Case Management Conference Continued to Aug. 26 NAVISTAR INT'L: October 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NEGVEST LIMITED: Faces "Torecchio" Suit Under FLSA, NJ Wage Law OLD DOMINION: "Blanco" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under Wage Order ORLEANS PARISH: Court Granted Class Certification in "Yarls" Suit PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Court Allows PAGA Claimants to File Class Claims PARKINSON'S SPECIALTY CARE: Settlement in "Ketty" Has Final Okay PEAK SECURITY: Court Denies Motion for Protective Order PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Smokers Lose Appeal in Class Action PJS OF PARMA: Court Denies Class Certification in "Carter" Suit POLSKIE LINIE: Must Defend Suit Over Delayed Flights POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Litigation PREMIER NUTRITION: Bid to Expand Consumer Class Denied PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: FLSA Case Settlement Has Preliminary Okay PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Sept. 8 Case Management Conference Set ROBERT DERING: Oviedo Hernandez Suit Has Conditional Class Cert. RYANAIR: CaseHub Mulls Class Action Over Hidden Fees SANTANDER CONSUMER: Preliminary Approval of "Hinkle" Deal Sought SBEEG HOLDINGS: Morgans Hotel Shareholders Sue Over Acquisition SCHERZINGER CORP: Court Tosses "Davenport" Wages Claim SEADRILL LIMITED: Court Dismisses Securities Complaint SHADE TREES: Couples Mull Class Action Over Wedding Venue Closure SIEMENS MEDICAL: 9th Cir. Affirm Ruling in "Pittman" Suit SIMON'S SHINE: "Perez" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA SINGING RIVER: Montgomery Faces Dismissal of Class Suit SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Affirmed Commissioner's Rulings in Atkins SOLAR CITY: Parties' Supplemental Brief Due July 1 SOUTH CAROLINA: To Make Reforms in Foster Care Amid Class Action SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Cal. Judge Sends "Lewis" Case to N.D. Texas SPRINT UNITED: Aug. 12 Post-Mediation Status Conference Set STARBUCKS CORP: Latte Underfiling Class Action Can Proceed STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Bower" STRYDEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Badger" Suit STYLES FOR LESS: $3,600,000 Settlement Has Preliminary Approval SUGAR ROCK: W.Va. Court Reverses Summary Judgment Ruling SWIFTSHIPS LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Panzer" Case TALMER BANCORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Michigan TEXAS: Denial of Class Cert. in Taxpayers' Suit Upheld THERANOS INC: Boies Schiller Serves as Chief Case Defender THERANOS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action Over Lab Test TICKETMASTER: Customers Get Free Concert Tickets Under Settlement TILE SHOP: Certification of Deduction & Overtime Classes Sought TIME WARNER: Fails to Refund Cable Overcharges, Probe Shows TOTAL ACCOUNT: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Circuit May Revive Arbitration Clause UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fate of Drivers' WARN Class Actions Uncertain UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Certification in "Brown" UNITED STATES: Nonprofits to Pursue PACER Fee Claims in Fed. Ct. UNITED STATES: High Court to Decide on Immigrant Detention Issue UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Must Defend Against "Ung" TCPA Suit US DISTRICT COURTS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Atchison" US PATENT COMMISSION: Court Sends "Henderson" Suit to Arbitration VERIZON WIRELESS: $1.2 Million Attorney's Fee Award Okayed VIACOM INC: Faces "Gilbert" Shareholder Lawsuit in Del. Ch. Court VOLKSWAGEN AG: Gas Car Owners in Korea File Class Action VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Class Action Over Emissions for $10 Bil. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bondholders File Suit Over Emissions Scandal WHIRLPOOL: Settles Class Action Over Moldy Front Loading Washers WYNYARD GROUP: Fund Managers Seek Support for Shareholder Suit XO COMMUNICATIONS: Court Trims Cafferty Clobes' Lawsuit * DOE's New Rules Target For-Profit-Schools' Forced Arbitration * Senators Reach Deal to Require GMO Product Labeling Nationwide ********* 3JT ENTERPRISES: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in ARcare Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an order in the lawsuit styled ARcare, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. 3JT Enterprises, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04663 (N.D. Ill.), dismissing Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to stay ruling without prejudice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dj9BedSZ AEG LIVE: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Complaint in "Pollard" ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice, the third amended complaint in the case captioned, JESSICA POLLARD, on behalf of herself and the putative class, Plaintiff, v. AEG LIVE, LLC, AEG LIVE NJ, LLC, CONCERTS WEST, Defendants, Case No. 14-1155 (SRC) (D.N.J.). Plaintiff alleges that AEG, as a promoter in control of the sale and distribution of concert tickets, violated a provision of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act that prohibits withholding more than five percent of event tickets from sale to the general public. Pollard, on behalf of herself and a putative class, claims that Defendants, customarily, through contractual obligations or otherwise, reserve tickets for industry insiders such as promoters, sponsors, and performers. Pollard claims that she was harmed by AEG's conduct when she bought tickets above face value to two New Jersey concerts, Bon Jovi's 2010 "The Circle" tour and Justin Bieber's 2013 "Believe Tour." The putative class includes attendees who overpaid and continue to overpay for these and perhaps thousands of other concerts promoted by AEG in New Jersey going back six years before the filing of the lawsuit. The Third Amended Complaint is Plaintiff's second attempt to plead a plausible claim based on excessive withholding. Pending before the Court is the motion filed by Defendants AEG Live, LLC, AEG Live NJ, LLC and Concerts West (collectively Defendants or AEG) to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Jessica Pollard (Plaintiff or Pollard) has opposed the motion. In his Opinion dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/4uxqMS from Leagle.com, Judge Chesler held that for the second time, Pollard provides no facts to illustrate a New Jersey practice of withholding, without which, her allegations are conclusory and cannot survive a motion to dismiss. The Court has no reason to believe that Pollard will successfully remedy her complaint if given a third chance. Jessica Pollard is represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- and GREG Michael Kohn, Esq. -- gkohn@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP AEG LIVE, LLC, et al. are represented by Stephanie Lynn Gal, Esq. -- sgal@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP AIRBNB: Vows to Fight Racism, Class-Action Waiver at Issue ---------------------------------------------------------- Katie Benner, writing for The New York Times, reports that Brian Chesky, chief executive of Airbnb, made a vow this month to root out bigotry from his business. His online room-sharing company has recently been grappling with claims of discrimination, with several Airbnb users sharing stories on social media about how they were supposedly denied a booking because of their race. The issue came into the open in December, when a working paper by Harvard University researchers found it was harder for guests with African-American-sounding names to rent rooms through the site. "This is a huge issue for us," Mr. Chesky said at a company event in San Francisco in early June. "We will be revisiting the design of our site from end to end to see how we can create a more inclusive platform." But even as Mr. Chesky promised to stamp out racism from Airbnb, the company's class-action litigation policy makes it tough -- if not impossible -- for customers to push the start-up to make any substantive changes on the issue. Airbnb requires that people agree to waive their right to sue, or to join in any class-action lawsuit or class-action arbitration, to use the service. That clause, known as a class-action waiver, crops up whenever someone logs into Airbnb's site. In March, the company updated its terms of service for new users, partly to highlight that clause. In May, Airbnb users were unable to log in and use their accounts until they agreed to the updated terms, including the class-action waiver language. The waiver clause can be broadly applied to many issues, not just accusations of discrimination. But class-action lawsuits have been particularly effective legal tools to press companies on their discrimination policies over the years, civil rights lawyers said, which would give Airbnb more cause to wield it as it grapples with the issue. In the past, such suits against Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Coca-Cola pushed those companies to change hiring and workplace practices. "Class-action cases have been the only effective way to prove and remedy systemic discrimination because you can't prove a pattern of behavior with individually filed cases," said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of New York Law School's Center for Justice and Democracy, who specializes in civil justice issues. The waiver clause and Airbnb's more prominent placement of it allows it to shield itself now from outside pressure around the discrimination issue and to handle the matter at its own pace and on its own terms. "Airbnb can say it doesn't condone racism and even has an anti- discrimination policy, but right now that policy doesn't have teeth if the company is legally insulated from having to comply with the same anti-discrimination laws that real estate brokers must comply with," said Jamila Jefferson-Jones, an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. A spokesman for Airbnb said that the company was open about its dispute resolution policies, including the waiver clause, and that "these provisions are common and we believe ours is balanced and protects consumers." In an interview, Chris Lehane, the head of global policy for Airbnb, said the company was being proactive in dealing with discrimination claims. Airbnb recently removed two of its hosts, including one for writing racist epithets to a black user and another for refusing a transgender woman as a guest. Mr. Lehane said the company suspended, or in some cases permanently banned, those who violated its anti-discrimination policy. Airbnb this month also hired Laura Murphy, the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office, as an outside adviser to look at the issue. Ms. Murphy said Airbnb was examining its internal structures and technology, and its processes for identifying and handling discrimination incidents, and building relationships with organizations like fair housing, human rights and travel groups. Airbnb aims to have announcements in the next 10 days about preliminary actions it is taking on discrimination, and it plans to have a full report with proposed remedies in September, she said. Eventually, the company wants to have a division to handle and resolve discrimination complaints, Ms. Murphy added. "Litigation is always an option, but we think it's better to take the time and effort to resolve problems if we can," she said in an interview. When there is litigation, Airbnb has not been afraid to use the class-action waiver clause. In March, the company cited the clause in fighting a class-action suit that accused Airbnb of acting as an unlicensed real estate broker. The company said the suit was moot because the plaintiffs had agreed to waive their class-action rights and, in a related clause, agreed to resolve disputes through individual arbitration. The judge in the case is now deciding whether it should be placed in the hands of an arbitrator. "Airbnb is willing and eager to use the class-action waiver and arbitration clause," said Jeffrey Norton, the lawyer who filed that suit in February. Airbnb may soon test the waiver clause directly in a class-action discrimination suit, which was filed in May in the United States District Court in Washington. The chief plaintiff, Gregory Selden, who is African-American, claimed Airbnb violated civil rights laws that forbid housing discrimination when a host on the service denied him accommodation last year because of his race. Airbnb's response to the lawsuit is due by July 13. Ikechukwu Emejuru, the lawyer representing Mr. Selden, said, "The sharing economy has grown exponentially, and Mr. Selden's experiences of not being accommodated by Airbnb because of his race put in motion this country's most iconic civil rights laws." He declined to comment further and said Mr. Selden was unavailable to comment. For Airbnb, an effective response to discrimination claims is needed to blunt any fallout on its business. The company, valued at about $25 billion, has hosts in more than 34,000 cities and 191 countries and is positioning itself as an alternative to hotels. Airbnb recently raised $1 billion in debt to help finance its growth, according to a person familiar with the deal who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the transaction is not public. The credit facility was reported earlier by Bloomberg. Airbnb's expansion depends partly on whether people of different nationalities and ethnicities feel welcomed to the platform in the same nondiscriminatory way that they are welcomed at international hotel chains. Two rival room-sharing services, Innclusive and Noirbnb, are now marketing themselves as services that provide inclusive and safe short-term rentals for people of any race or ethnicity. Ms. Murphy, the Airbnb adviser, said the company recognized that eliminating discrimination was in its best interests. She said Airbnb's relative youth -- the company was founded in 2008 -- meant it could deal with the issue in a more agile way than companies with entrenched cultures that may have needed the pressure of litigation to do the right thing. "Airbnb is part of a new area of commerce, and the conditions for transactions are still developing," she said. "That's why it's important to get it right." ANGELO GORDON: Shifted Beniahana's Obligation to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- BRENDAN WILKES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. ANGELO, GORDON & CO., L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, BENIHANA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA CARLSBAD CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA BEVERLY HILLS CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA DOWNEY CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA MARINA CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA MONTEREY CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA OF PUENTE HILLS CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA ONTARIO CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA SAN FRANCISCO CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA SANTA ANITA CORP., a Delaware Corporation, BENIHANA SUNRISE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES I through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2016-00019855-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, penalties, restitution and disgorgement of monies, caused from BENIHANA's illegal and unreasonable scheme to shift BENIAHANA's obligation to pay the wages of its chefs, bartenders and bussers to its servers, pursuant to the California Bus. & Prof. Code. The Plaintiff also seeks an order enjoining Defendants from failing to maintain accurate, complete, and readily available records and to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements. Angelo Gordon is a privately-held registered investment advisor dedicated to alternative investing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Debra L. Hurst, Esq. Kyle Van Dyke, Esq. Julie Corbo Ridley, Esq. HURST & HURST 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 921 01 Telephone: (619) 236 0016 Facsimile: (619) 236 8569 E-mail: dhurst@hurst-hurst.com kvandyke@hurst-hurst.com julie@hurst-hurst.com APPLE INC: E-Book Price-Fixing Settlement Payouts Begin ------------------------------------------------------- Luigi Lugmayr, writing for I4U News, reports that starting, June 21, you can get money from Apple, Amazon and others if you have purchased e-books. Class Action law firm Hagens Berman has announced that the $400 Million e-Book Price-Fixing Antitrust Class Action settlement gets paid out starting June 21. Millions of e-book purchasers will receive credits and checks for twice their losses in the antitrust lawsuit filed against the Nations's largest book sellers for their roles in an alleged e-book price-fixing scheme, according to Hagens Berman. You can get $6.93 credit for every e-book which was a New York Times bestseller, and a $1.57 credit for other e-books from Apple and others. The credits will be automatically sent directly into the accounts of your account at major book retailers, including Amazon.com Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., Kobo Inc. and Apple. Retailers will issue emails and put the credits in the accounts simultaneously. If you prefer a check in lieu of a credit, you will receive a check from the retailer. If you received a credit during the first round of distribution of publisher settlements, and you did not opt out, you will automatically receive a credit. The combined $400 million that will go to consumers follows the final stage in the lawsuit in which the Supreme Court denied appeal from Apple, bringing the consumer payback amount to more than twice the amount of losses suffered by the class of e-book purchasers. This represents one of the most successful recovery of damages in any antitrust lawsuit in the country. "To make this settlement effective and accessible for consumers, our team faced a sizable undertaking that entailed almost constant contact with the retailers to make sure the credits will be applied to consumer accounts across the country," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "This is the second round of distribution in the case, and we believe the only case in the country to have so much money returned directly to consumers." Attorneys calculated damages based on the books purchased and worked cooperatively with retailers to calculate the award for each class member. The class of consumers alleged that Apple illegally colluded with a group of five publishing companies to manipulate the e-book market by artificially raising the price of e-books, lowering competition and charging consumers higher prices. According to attorneys, the anticompetitive price-fixing collusion between Apple and the publishers caused the price of e-books to increase 30 to 50 percent to $12.99 or $14.99 from Amazon's $9.99 price. Hagens Berman litigated the case jointly with the United States Department of Justice and attorneys general from 33 U.S. states and territories. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Trims Shasta Linen Supply's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY, INC., a California corporation, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Nebraska corporation; APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, a British Virgin Islands company; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, a registered California insurance company; APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC., a Nebraska corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-158 WBS AC (E.D. Cal.), District Judge William B. Shubb granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint only to the extent of invalidating the Reinsurance Participation Agreement's (RPA) rate plan. According to the Court, the Complaint does not contain any allegations that the insurance commissioner had conducted a hearing and disapproved the RPA's rates. Thus, plaintiff fails to state a claim that the RPA's rates are void. In all other respects, defendants' motion is denied. Shasta Linen Supply filed this putative class action alleging claims for fraud and unfair competition against the Defendants, and seeking to represent a class of California employers who purchased an EquityComp workers' compensation insurance program from the Defendants. A copy of the court's June 20 decision is available at http://goo.gl/x4PtVafrom Leagle.com. Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Craig E. Farmer -- cfarmer@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP & John L. Hall -- jhall@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP. Applied Underwriters, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Russell Stedman -- rstedman@barwol.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP. California Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP. Applied Risk Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer Y. Kook -- skook@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. BARRICK GOLD: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman has granted preliminary approval to a proposed $140 million class action settlement with Barrick Gold Corporation, on behalf of a certified class of shareholders who purchased Barrick common stock on the New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2009 and Nov. 1, 2013. The court will consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement at a Fairness Hearing on Oct. 18, 2016 at 10 a.m. The settlement follows three years of litigation in connection with the company's Pascua-Lama mine located along the border of Chile and Argentina. Plaintiffs alleged that Barrick and certain current and former executives misrepresented the company's compliance with environmental regulations and the adequacy of the company's internal controls. Notice of the proposed settlement and claims forms will be mailed to shareholders potentially affected by the settlement on June 29, 2016. For more information, please call the claims administrator The Garden City Group, LLC at (855) 907-3222 or visit www.barrickgoldsecuritieslitigation.com The postmark deadline for submitting requests for exclusion from the certified class or written objections to any aspect of the settlement is Sept. 21, 2016. The postmark deadline for class members to submit claim forms is Sept. 29, 2016. The case is In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, case number 1:13-cv-03851 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. BASS PRO: Suit Over Discriminatory Hiring Practices Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a federal appeals court ruling in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's claims against the sporting goods company Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC could bolster the power of the agency to police and seek damages for alleged discriminatory hiring practices. Bass Pro, represented by King & Spalding, lost its challenge on June 17 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three-judge panel, ruling unanimously, said the EEOC case in the Southern District of Texas can proceed. The agency sued in 2011, alleging Bass Pro demonstrated a "pattern or practice" of discriminating against African-American and Hispanic job applicants. The EEOC estimates that thousands of prospective employees could be deemed "harmed" by Bass Pro. At the heart of Bass Pro's argument was a challenge to how the agency proceeded with its discriminatory-hiring allegations. Bass Pro's lawyers argued the EEOC was barred from pursuing a "pattern or practice" case using Sec. 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. A trial judge initially agreed but later reversed course. The Fifth Circuit upheld the ability of the agency to bring such claims under Sec. 706, a provision rarely used to look at broad companywide practices. Section 706 does not expressly cover pattern or practice claims, but allows for compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiffs. The commission in its case also cited Sec. 707, the provision that includes pattern or practice cases explicitly, but only provides remedial relief to plaintiffs. A lawyer for Bass Pro, Michael Johnston of King & Spalding, who argued the case in the Fifth Circuit, was not immediately reachable for comment on June 20. The company, which denies the discrimination allegations, said in a statement: "The Fifth Circuit's procedural ruling is perplexing as it provides no guidance for the district court on how to try the EEOC's claims without violating Bass Pro's rights under the Seventh Amendment and Due Process Clause. In response to this 'figure it out as we go along' approach, the company is considering a number of potential actions." The ruling could place new procedural and financial burdens on companies that find themselves in the employment commission's crosshairs on pattern-or-practice discrimination claims. "This truly is a major new day, a new era for EEOC authority to pursue major pattern-or-practices cases," said Bill Martucci -- wmartucci@shb.com -- a business and employment litigation partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon who is not involved in the Bass Pro case. "And it's breathtaking because of the fact that this is the Fifth Circuit, often thought of as being moderate in its approach to very sensitive employment issues and favorable to employers who raise issues concerning very pragmatic aspects of the impacts of given rulings." The commission's suit sought the amount of damages provided by Sec. 706, but using the framework developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, which is normally reserved for Sec. 707 cases. The two-part Teamsters framework requires the commission first prove that the discriminatory practices were a standard operating procedure at the company in question. Then, the burden shifts to the company to prove that each individual in the group of plaintiffs who experienced adverse employment action did not experience discrimination. Bass Pro tried to stop the proceedings in Texas federal district court, arguing that Congress never intended for Secs. 706 and 707 to be combined. Fifth Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, writing for the appellate panel, rejected that argument. Although such a split might be sound policy, he wrote, "the plain language of the statute cannot yield to such adversarial persuasion." "We decline to undo the structure erected by Congress in the guise of interpretation seduced by judicially preferred policy choices," Judge Higginbotham wrote. The court also rejected other Bass Pro arguments, including the contention that the use of Sec. 706 to try pattern-or-practice claims violates employers' rights to due process. Bass Pro argued that companies will face intense pressure to settle if plaintiffs prevail in the first stage of the Teamsters framework process before the company presents defenses to individual claims. "If affirmed, the district court's rulings could provide a government agency with an incentive to exercise its authority to enforce our nation's anti-discrimination laws in a manner that not only strays far afield from Congress's intent, but tramples employers' rights to their day in court to defend themselves," Bass Pro lawyers wrote in a Fifth Circuit brief. "The EEOC's mission is important and noble, but this undisputed fact does not excuse the agency from trying its cases in a lawful manner." BAY AREA RAPID: Faces "Brunker" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JODI BRUNKER, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-03399-EDL (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2016), seeks alleged unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a transit district that governs the Bay Area Rapid Transit system in the California counties of Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone: (916) 446-4692 Fax: (916) 447-4614 BLATTNER ENERGY: Hoffman Class Certification Bid Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RODNEY HOFFMAN, the Plaintiff, v. BLATTNER ENERGY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. CV 14-2195 DMG-DTBx (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Dolly M. Gee: 1. certifies these class and subclasses: Overall Class: All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked on construction projects in California and were paid on an hourly basis from September 24, 2010 to the present. Meal Period Subclass: Defendant's non-exempt employees who worked one or more shifts in excess of six hours on construction projects in California and were not provided a 30-minute break during which they were relieved of all duties, during the period from September 24, 2010 to the present. Overtime Subclass: Defendant's non-exempt employees who worked in excess of eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a workweek on construction projects in California during the period from September 24, 2010 to the present. Minimum Wage Subclass: Defendant's non-exempt employees who worked on construction projects in California and were not properly paid all minimum wages during the period from September 24, 2010 to the present. Wage Statement Subclass: Defendant's non-exempt employees who worked on construction projects in California and received an itemized wage statement during the period from September 24, 2010 to the present. Terminated Employee Subclass: Defendants' non-exempt employees who worked on construction projects in California during the period from September 24, 2010 to the present, and who were not properly paid all wages upon termination or within 72 hours thereof. 2. declines to certify the on-duty meal period, recovery period, and reimbursement subclasses. 3. certifies Hoffman's UCL class claim under the "unlawful" prong to the extent it is derived from the claims that Blattner failed to provide meal periods or pay all minimum and overtime wages. 4. declines to certify Hoffman's UCL class claim to the extent it is based on the "unfair" practice of failing to provide shade to employees. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SxmeiySw BNSF RAILWAY: 7th Cir. Imposes Sanction on Plaintiff's Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- In the appellate case captioned, BEATRICE BOYER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, doing business as BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant, Case Nos. 14-3131, 14-3182 (7th Cir.), Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed in part the dismissal of the complaint, reversed the denial of sanctions and remanded the case. The suit arises out of a July 2007 flood in Bagley, Wisconsin. A 500-year rain that occurred on July 17 and 18, 2007, sent torrents of water down those ravines, among them the Glass Hollow Drain. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) bridge crosses over the Glass Hollow Drain near Bagley. Large amounts of debris swept along by the rainwater clogged the trestle undergirding the railway bridge, causing the water runoff to back up and inundate Bagley. Most of the town's 300 to 400 homes were flooded. Kenneth Irish and three other Bagley residents filed a class action suit against BNSF and two of its supervisory employees in Wisconsin state court in 2008. The suit blamed the flood of Bagley on faulty design and maintenance of the trestle by BNSF and its predecessors and sought damages based on theories of negligence and nuisance. BNSF removed the case to federal court where, after some initial procedural skirmishes, the district court dismissed the complaint as to BNSF pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court held that Wis. Stat. Sec. 88.87 provides the exclusive remedy when the negligent design and maintenance of a railroad grade has caused an obstruction to a waterway or drainage course and resulted in flooding. That statute authorizes a person injured by such flooding to sue in inverse condemnation or for other equitable relief, but not for money damages; moreover, the statute requires the injured party to first file a claim with the railroad company within three years of the flood. Sec. 88.87(2)(c). On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that section 88.87 had a narrower scope than the courts had attributed to it, one that did not reach their claims for damages. In her Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/yQL8y9 from Leagle.com, Judge Rovner concluded that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the terms of section 88.87. The decision of plaintiffs' counsel to file the litigation in Arkansas state court was objectively unreasonable and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings, warranting sanctions pursuant to section 1927. The Court remanded the action with directions to impose sanctions on the plaintiffs' lead counsel, Christopher D. Stombaugh, in the amount of $34,575.80. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION: Carrier Defendants Win More Time to Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALINA BEKKERMAN; BRANDON GRIFFITH; JENNY LEE; and CHARLES LISSER, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AT&T, INC.; SPRINT CORPORATION; T-MOBILE US, INC.; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants and Respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-00709-MCE- EFB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. approved a Joint Stipulation to Continue Defendants' Time To Respond To Initial Complaint Pursuant To Local Rule 144. The Carrier Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended from June 6, 2016, to two weeks after the Court's order on the remand motions becomes final, or September 12, 2016, whichever is later. A copy of the court's June 6, 2016 order is available at http://goo.gl/lfYbvVfrom Leagle.com. California Board of Equalization, Defendant, represented by Michael Sapoznikow -- michael.sapoznikow@doj.ca.gov -- California Department of Justice & Nhan Thien Vu -- nhan.vu@doj.ca.gov -- State of California Department of Justice. State of California, Defendant, represented by Michael Sapoznikow -- michael.sapoznikow@doj.ca.gov -- California Department of Justice & Nhan Thien Vu -- nhan.vu@doj.ca.gov -- State of California Department of Justice. AT&T, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Nadolenco -- jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Donald M. Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP. Sprint Corporation, Defendant, represented by Fred R. Puglisi, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. T-Mobile US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rochelle L. Wilcox -- rochellewilcox@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Verizon Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry Weissmann -- Henry.Weissmann@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Conn. Over Pradaxa Safety ------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND WALTER, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16- 6069015-S (Conn. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut Products Liability Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants negligently designed and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling, prescribing information and patient medication guide which rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective. The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM), throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood clot. 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 BROCKELBANK INC: Class Certification Sought in "Lesh" Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff moves for Class Certification and Relief from Memorandum, Supporting Documents, and Automatic Briefing Requirements in the class action lawsuit titled ANTON LESH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROCKELBANK, INC., d/b/a AR OUTSOURCING and d/b/a GREAT LAKES COLLECTION AGENCY, the Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00727- PP (E.D. Wisc.). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ibqo3YH3 The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. 4ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com CACH LLC: Court Won't Hear Oral Arguments on FDCPA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that when William Echols of Amity made a nearly $1,400 credit card payment in 2012, he thought he was done with the bill. But it was only the beginning. GE Money Retail Bank, the company that financed the credit for furniture Echols bought, sold the debt to Cach LLC of Denver, which then sued Echols in 2013 in Clark County District Court. Echols turned around and filed a class-action complaint against Cach and its parent company, SquareTwo Financial Corp. He alleges violations of the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The case was moved to Clark County Circuit Court, and in December, Circuit Court Judge Robert McCallum gave the case class-action status, which could include thousands of potential class members in Arkansas who were subjected to Cach's collection techniques. The defendants appealed the class-certification order. The Arkansas Supreme Court said June 9 that it won't hear oral arguments on the case, but will instead decide it using the briefs and the court record. David Donovan of Little Rock, the attorney for the defendants, told Arkansas Business that the basis for the appeal is that Echols' claims are different from others in the class. Echols had already paid the alleged debt that Cach sued him to collect. "The others claimed that Cach was not properly licensed; of course, that's changed a little bit," said Mr. Donovan, of the law firm Watts Donovan & Tilley. "But that's for another day. That's not the subject of the appeal." When Echols filed the lawsuit, debt collectors had to be licensed by the Arkansas State Board of Collection Agencies. But during the 2015 legislative session, Rep. Dan M. Douglas, R-Bentonville, sponsored a bill that allowed collection agencies that had collected money without a license to retroactively get their license by paying a $10,000 fine, the only consequence they would face. The bill passed. Mr. Douglas told Arkansas Business that he sponsored the legislation because he was approached by collection agencies that said they didn't realize that they needed to be licensed. "The way the laws were written, they had to be licensed," Mr. Douglas said. "It was just very poorly worded language." CALIFORNIA: Judge Disallows Access to Inmate Witnesses ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. GRISSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB (PC), (E.D. Calif.), District Judge Stanley A. Boone denies plaintiff's motion for a court order granting him access to communicate to inmate witnesses. A copy of the court's June 2, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/i8BB7Afrom Leagle.com. Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling the California Medical Facility litigation coordinator, a non-party, to provide access to the location of inmate witnesses listed in Plaintiff group appeal. The court held that (1) the plaintiff does not have an unfettered right to access to legal materials and witnesses; (2) that this court does not have jurisdiction in this case; (3) the inmates may only correspond with one another if they obtain written authorization from the appropriate prison officials; and (4) that plaintiff cannot bring a class action or join other individuals in this action. Grissom et al., Defendants, represented by Kelly Ariana Samson -- kelly.samson@doj.ca.gov -- Office of the Attorney General. Akanno, Defendant, represented by Janine K. Jeffery -- Jjeffery@reilyjeffery.com -- Reily & Jeffery, Inc. CAREFIRST INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Chambliss" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned, PAMELA CHAMBLISS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAREFIRST, INC, et. al., Defendants, Case No. RDB- 15-2288 (D. Md.). Plaintiffs Pamela Chambliss (Chambliss) and Scott Adamson (Adamson) (Plaintiffs) bring the putative class action against Defendants CareFirst, Inc., CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. (Defendants or CareFirst), and Does 1-10, alleging various tort, negligence, and statutory claims arising under Maryland law. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to secure adequately the computer hardware storing their customers' personal information, including names, birth dates, email addresses, and subscriber identification numbers. At the time of the breach, named Plaintiffs Pamela Chambliss and Scott Adamson held health insurance issued by CareFirst. They seek to bring a putative class action on behalf of other holders of CareFirst health insurance. Plaintiffs subsequently filed the present action asserting five claims arising under federal and Maryland law: negligence (Count I); breach of implied contract (Count II); unjust enrichment (Count III); declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S. Code Sections 2201 (Count IV); and the Maryland Personal Information Protection Act, Md. Code Ann, Com. Law Sections 14-3501, et seq. (Count V). Defendants move to dismiss the present Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy Article III of the Constitution. In his Memorandum Opinion dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/W1zSHu from Leagle.com, Judge Bennett held that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the future harm from the CareFirst data breach is "certainly impending" or that there is "a substantial risk that the harm will occur" and that Plaintiffs have not alleged any benefit-of-the- bargain loss that could constitute a cognizable injury in fact. Pamela Chambliss and Scott Adamson are represented by Price O. Gielen, Esq. -- pog@nqgrg.com -- NEUBERGER QUINN GIELEN RUBIN AND GIBBER PA, Joshua D. Wells, Esq. -- jdw@federamnlaw.com -- and William B. Federman, Esq. -- wbf@federamnlaw.com -- FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD CareFirst, Inc. and CareFirst of Maryland are represented by Matthew Owen Gatewood, Esq. -- matt.gatewood@sutherland.com -- and Gerin Brendan Ballard, Esq. -- gerin.ballard@sutherland.com -- SUTHERLAND ASBILL AND BRENNAN LLP CARING FOR MONTANANS: Sued Over Benefit Plans Surcharge Premiums ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE DEPOT, INC., a Montana Corporation, UNION CLUB BAR, INC., a Montana Corporation, and TRAIL HEAD, INC., a Montana Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CARING FOR MONTANANS, INC., F/K/A BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC. (BCBSMT), HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORP., and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-00074-DLC (D. Mont., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover improperly obtained and misappropriated funds relating to health insurance contracts between BCBSMT and Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek repayment of all amounts charged by BCBSMT and paid by Chamber Choices consumers in excess of the medical premium; costs and attorney's fees; treble damages for violation of the Consumer Protection Act; an order of disgorgement and/or restitution and/or other appropriate equitable order; and pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law. The Class includes thousands of others similarly situated entrusted BCBSMT with their employee benefit plans through the Chamber Choices health insurance arrangement. According to the complaint, BCBSMT violated trust by charging Plaintiffs and the others unauthorized and undisclosed surcharge amounts exceeding the medical premium, which amounts it used to pay for unlawful kickbacks to an association that marketed the health insurance to its members and to purchase other insurance products that the customers did not request or authorize. In doing so, BCBSMT misappropriated plan assets for its own benefit while misrepresenting and concealing these facts, violating its duties under ERISA and state common law and causing Plaintiffs and others significant economic losses. Caring For Montanans is a large-sized hospital & medical service plan company in Helena, Montana. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Morrison, Esq. Linda M. Deola, Esq. MORRISON SHERWOOD WILSON DEOLA PLLP 401 N. Last Chance Gulch! P.O. Box 557 Helena, MT 59624-0557 Telephone: (406) 442 3261 E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com ldeola@mswdlaw.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. BISHOP & HEENAN 1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste. 1 Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839 9091 E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com CB1 INC: Must Defend Against "Wittman" FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------- District Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court for the District of Montana denied CB1, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned, WILLIAM WITTMAN and AMBER BELLAMY, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CB1, INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 15-105-BLG-BMM (D. Mont.). Plaintiffs William Wittman and Amber Bellamy (Plaintiffs) bring the putative class action against CB1, Inc. (CB1) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692et seq., and the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCA Sections 30-14-101 et seq. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Otsby entered Findings and Recommendations in the matter on April 8, 2016, recommending that the Court deny CB1's motion to dismiss and strike class allegations. He determined that Plaintiffs adequately have stated a claim for relief under sections 1692f and 1692e(2)(B) of the FDCPA and relief claim under MCPA. CB1 filed objections to Judge Otsby's Findings and Recommendations on April 25, 2016, and argued that the Court should strike paragraphs 43 through 49 of the Complaint because Montana law prevents Plaintiffs from representing a class of individuals under the MCPA. In his Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/kN46CG from Leagle.com, Judge Morris determined that the MCPA's class action prohibition does not apply in federal court and adopted in full the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Otsby finding that he properly determined that Plaintiffs adequately have alleged that CB1 imposed an incidental fee in the payment of their debt. William Wittman and Amber Bellamy are represented by: D. Michael Eakin, Esq. EAKIN, BERRY & GRYGIEL, PLLC 251 Edelweiss Dr Bozeman Gallatin MT 59718-3933 - and - John C. Heenan, Esq. BISHOP AND HEENAN 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Tel: (406)839-9091 CB1, Inc. is represented by Abraham J. Colman, Esq. -- acolman@reedsmith.com -- and Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. -- rkim@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH. CB1 is also represented by: Martin Steve Smith, Esq. FELT, MARTIN, FRAZIER & WELDON, P.C. 208 North Broadway, Suite 313 Billings, MT 59101 Tel: (406)248-7646 CHASE BANK: Court Denies Objector's Motion for Fees and Award ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Objector Tamiqueca J. Johnson D'Oyley's motion for attorney fees, expenses, and an incentive award in the case captioned, JONATHAN I. GEHRICH, ROBERT LUND, COREY GOLDSTEIN, PAUL STEMPLE and CARRIE COUSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 12 C 5510 (N.D. Ill.). In July 2012, Jonathan Gehrich filed the class action against Chase Bank for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On March 2, 2016, the court certified the settlement class and modified and approved a proposed settlement as follows: (1) $21,531,656.39 to the Collection Call Subclass; (2) a dedicated cy pres distribution of $50,000 to the CFA; (3) settlement administration expenses of approximately $5,152,929.51; (4) court-approved incentive awards to the five class representatives in the amount of $1,500 each ($7,500 total); and (5) court-approved attorney fees and costs of $7,257,914.10; the court reduced Class Counsel's requested attorney fees approximately $2.25 million and $950,000 proposed cy pres award from its designated recipient to the class. On March 2, 2016, the day the court issued the final approval order, D'Oyley moved for $285,000 or $297,000 in attorney fees, $9,216.53 in costs, and an incentive award "equal to or greater than" $1,500. D'Oyley premises her fee request on the court's reallocation of $950,000 from the proposed dedicated $1 million cy pres distribution to the Collection Call Subclass. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/gHfEu6 from Leagle.com, Judge Feinerman held that D'Oyley did not contribute materially to the settlement class's recovery or to the court's decision to reallocate $950,000. Jonathan I. Gehrich is represented by Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. -- eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq. -- mark@ankcorn.com -- ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC, Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. -- ali@sllawfirm.com -- SAEED & LITTLE, LLP, Todd M. Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. -- and Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC Robert Lund is represented by Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq. -- gmb@cglaw.com -- CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP, Mark Daniel Esq. -- mark@ankcorn.com -- ANKCORN, ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC, Todd M. Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. -- and Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC Corey Goldstein is represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq. -- mark@ankcorn.com -- ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC, Todd M. Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. -- and Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC Chase Bank USA, N.A. is represented by Julia B. Strickland, Esq. -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Julieta Stepanyan, Esq. -- jstepanyan@stroock.com -- and Arjun Patibandla Rao, Esq. -- arao@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, Kenneth Michael Kliebard, Esq. -- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com -- and Tedd Macrae Warden, Esq. -- tedd.warden@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is represented by Julieta Stepanyan, Esq. -- jstepanyan@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP & Kenneth Michael Kliebard, Esq. -- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement of McIntyre Suit Has Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Max O. Cogburn of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted preliminary approval of the parties' settlement in the case captioned, CAMERON McINTYRE, Plaintiff, v. CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-213-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.). Lead Plaintiff Roman Zak, on behalf of all Class Members, on the one hand, and Defendants Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd., Simon Pedder, and William D. Schwieterman, on the other hand, by and through their respective counsel, have made an application, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order preliminarily approving a settlement in accordance with a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated as of May 23, 2016. In his Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/F7K0L7 from Leagle.com, Judge Cogburn. Jr. found the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and that the prerequisites for a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. The Court appointed Roman Zak as Lead Plaintiff, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel and Rust Consulting, Inc. as Claims Administrator. Cameron McIntyre is represented by Jeremy Allan Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP -- and Gary W. Jackson, Esq. -- gjackson@ncadvocates.com -- THE JACKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC Roman Zak is represented by Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq. -- klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Megan M. Sullivan, Esq. -- msullivan@faruqilaw.com -- and Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP -- and Paul Anthony Daniels, Esq. -- Paul.Daniels@oxnerpermarlaw.com -- OXNER PERMAR + RICHARDSON PLLC Chelsea Therapeutics International, LTD., Simon Pedder, L. Arthur Hewitt, J. Nick Riehle and William D. Schwieterman are represented by Lee M. Whitman, Esq. -- lwhitman@wyrick.com -- Paul J. Puryear, Jr., Esq. -- ppuryear@wyrick.com -- and Sarah M. Johnson, Esq. -- jjohnson@wyrick.com -- WYRICK ROBBINS YATES & PONTON LLP, Barry M. Kaplan, Esq. -- bkaplan@wsgr.com -- Gregory Lewis Watts, Esq. -- gwatts@wsgr.com -- and Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Esq. -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI CONAIR CORP: Courts Denies Class Certification in "Wilson" ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned, DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-00894 WBS SAB (E.D. Cal.). On February 12, 2014, plaintiff suffered injuries to her eye, face, and chest when the power cord on her Conair curling iron began to crackle and emit sparks. She was diagnosed with a corneal abrasion that continues to require treatment. Plaintiff brought the putative class action against Conair, a health and beauty supply company, asserting that it has allegedly failed to follow standard policies and procedures for protecting consumers from a defective line cord in its styling irons and failed to comply with reporting laws. Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action in her First Amended Complaint on behalf of herself and the proposed class members: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) unfair business practices to conceal the power cord defect from consumers and false and misleading advertising in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and (3) breach of implied warranty, Cal. Com. Code Sec. 2314. Plaintiff also asserts the following individual causes of action: (4) strict products liability due to design or manufacture defect; (5) strict products liability due to failure to warn; and (6) negligence. In the motion, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that consists of: "All persons who purchased Conair Styling Irons in California." In his Order dated June 3, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Dzm62B from Leagle.com, Judge Shubb found that plaintiff fails to satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a) and that plaintiff is an inadequate representative of the class under Rule 23(a). Delia Wilson is represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq. -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- and Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq. -- jmacpherson@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP She is also represented by: Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. ODENBREIT LAW, APC 16835 Algonquin St., Ste. 221, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Tel: (888)490-3510 Conair Corporation is represented by Ryan Donald Saba, Esq. -- rsaba@rosensaba.com -- ROSEN SABA DELTA AIR: Wants Judge to Halt Class Action Over Baggage Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- R. Robin McDonald, writing for Law.com, reports that two national airlines are fighting to persuade a federal judge in Atlanta to stop ongoing antitrust litigation over baggage fees from proceeding as a class action on behalf of an estimated 28 million passengers. At a hearing on June 21 before U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten, attorneys for Delta Air Lines and codefendant AirTran Airways (now part of Southwest Airlines) argued that the multidistrict litigation -- which accuses Delta of illegally colluding with AirTran to impose first-bag fees on the flying public -- does not qualify for class action status because millions of passengers may have been reimbursed for their costs by employers or had their tickets and bag fees paid for by other third parties, meaning they did not actually sustain a loss. Citing their own experts, airline attorneys also claimed the first-bag fees -- which have risen from $15 to $25 since they were introduced in 2008 -- likely led to lower airline ticket prices. But lawyers who filed the antitrust actions in 2009 on behalf of airline passengers alleged that an underlying price-fixing conspiracy led to the first-bag fees directly affecting every passenger, and said the resulting financial damages can be documented through ticket and financial records. Relying on their own experts, they also challenged as misleading and inaccurate airline lawyers' assertions that first-bag fees had resulted in lower air fares. "If this case can't be certified, we don't know how any class action could be certified," said attorney Daniel Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- of Washington's Kotchen & Low -- one of a team of lawyers representing plaintiff passengers. The stakes are high. The multidistrict litigation seeks both full monetary and treble damages for all passengers who have paid first bag fees since Delta and AirTran instituted them. Delta attorneys told the court on June 21 that as of 2013, an estimated 28 million passengers had paid the first-bag fees. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Delta has collected $5.9 billion in baggage fees since 2009, and AirTran earned $462.8 million before its 2011 merger with Southwest, which allows passengers to check two bags free of charge. The suits contend the two airlines used a series of 2008 public earnings conference calls with securities analysts, industry conferences and joint negotiations with Atlanta's Hartsfield- Jackson International Airport over gate leases to illegally coordinate plans to implement a first-bag fee, cut back on the total number of daily flights, and increase ticket prices -- all at the expense of passengers who had previously benefited from the airlines' vigorous competition. Attorneys also argued in court papers that emails uncovered during the litigation suggest that AirTran executives also were communicating with Delta through an unofficial "grapevine." In seeking to dismiss the case, Delta lawyers have argued that the antitrust allegations rested "on entirely conclusory characterizations" of statements made by Delta and AirTran to the investment community. But Delta has also paid $8.4 million in court-ordered sanctions for its repeated failure to preserve files and records that were lost, misplaced or destroyed. The June 21 hearing gave the airlines a second opportunity to defeat the push for a class action. Last year, Judge Batten certified the litigation as a class action, rejecting arguments that charging first-bag fees had allowed the airlines to lower fares. The judge also held that individual claims by passengers would be "so small that the cost of individual litigation would be far greater than the value of those claims." But two weeks after certifying the class, Judge Batten vacated his order and asked for additional briefs to address reports by competing experts as to whether, or how, bag fees had influenced ticket prices. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Class Certified in "Nitsch" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and certified as modified Plaintiffs' proposed class in the case captioned, ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal.). The case is a consolidated class action brought by former employees alleging antitrust claims against their former employers, who are various animation and visual effects studios with principal places of business in California. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix and suppress employee compensation and to restrict employee mobility. Plaintiffs are artists and engineers who were previously employed by four of the named Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to suppress compensation in two ways: -- Defendants allegedly entered into a scheme not to actively solicit each other's employees. -- Defendants allegedly engaged in "collusive discussions in which they exchanged competitively sensitive compensation information and agreed upon compensation ranges," which would artificially limit compensation offered to Defendants' current and prospective employees. In their Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "All animation and visual effects employees employed by defendants in the United States who held any of the jobs listed in Ashenfelter Report Appendix C during the following time periods: Pixar (2001-2010), Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC (2001-2010), DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (2003-2010), The Walt Disney Company (2004-2010), Sony Pictures Animation, Inc. and Sony Pictures Imageworks, Inc. (2004-2010), Blue Sky Studios, Inc. (2005-2010) and Two Pic MC LLC f/k/a ImageMovers Digital LLC (2007-2010). Excluded from the Class are senior executives, members of the board of directors, and persons employed to perform office operations or administrative tasks." In her Order dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/WT3Hhx from Leagle.com, Judge Koh found that Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and granted a class of "All animation and visual effects employees employed by defendants in the United States who held any of the jobs listed in Ashenfelter Reply Report Amended Appendix C during the following time periods: Pixar (2004-2010), Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC (2004-2010), DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (2004-2010), The Walt Disney Company (2004-2010), Sony Pictures Animation, Inc. and Sony Pictures Imageworks, Inc. (2004-2010), Blue Sky Studios, Inc. (2005-2010) and Two Pic MC LLC f/k/a ImageMovers Digital LLC (2007-2010). Excluded from the Class are senior executives, members of the board of directors, and persons employed to perform office operations or administrative tasks. " The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as to class members who worked at Pixar and Lucasfilm in 2001-2003 and as to class members who worked at DreamWorks in 2003. The Court appointed named Plaintiffs Robert A. Nitsch, Jr., Georgia Cano, and David Wentworth as Class Representatives. The Court appoints as class counsel Daniel A. Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Marc M. Seltzer of Susman Godfrey L.L.P., and Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, along with their respective firms. Robert A. Nitsch, Jr. is represented by Daniel A. Small, Esq. -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. -- mruan@cohenmilstein.com -- Brent W. Johnson, Esq. -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- and Daniel Hershey Silverman, Esq. - - dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC, Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- and Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. - - HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Steven Gerald Sklaver, Esq. -- ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- and Jordan Lee Talge, Esq. -- JTalge@susmangodfrey.com -- SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP -- and Richard L. Grossman, Esq. -- PILLSBURY & COLEMAN, LLP Georgia Cano is represented by Craig Justin Ackermann, Esq. -- ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C., Jeff D Friedman, Esq. -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Esq. -- jdubner@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC, Julian Ari Hammond, Esq. -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HAMMONDLAW, PC, Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. -- ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- Matthew Robert Berry, Esq. -- mberry@susmangodfrey.com -- Steven Gerald Sklaver, Esq. -- ssklaver@susmangodfrey.comv -- John Edward Schiltz, Esq. -- jschiltz@susmangodfrey.com -- and Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. -- mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- SUSMAN GODFREY LLP Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. is represented by Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq. Rodney Joseph Stone, Esq. -- and Shannon Edward Mader, Esq. -- GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP, Robert Addy Van Nest, Esq. -- KEKER & VAN NEST LLP Pixar, Lucasfilm Ltd., The Walt Disney Company, Image Movers Digital, Sony Pictures Animation and Blue Sky Studios, Inc. are represented by Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. -- ejhenn@gibsondunn.com -- Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq. -- chlannin@gibsondunn.com -- Deborah A. Garza, Esq. -- ogarza@gibsondunn.com -- and Kathryn Elizabeth Cahoy, Esq. -- COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP, John Watkins Keker, Esq. -- jkeker@kvn.com -- Cody Shawn Harris, Esq. -- charris@kvn.com -- and William Hamilton Jordan, Esq. -- wjordan@kvn.com -- KEKER AND VAN NEST LLP EBAY INC: $1.2MM Accord in "Rosado" Case Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Award in the case captioned, LUIS ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EBAY INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:12-CV-04005-EJD (N.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the deal, eBay will pay $1.2 million into a non- reversionary Gross Settlement Fund, which will be used to pay for: (1) Class member settlement payments in the form of either cash or eBay credit (or both) and check payments (2) the named Plaintiff's enhancement award, attorneys' fees and costs, and (3) administrative costs. Funds that remain after all payments are made will not revert to eBay. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that eBay's business practice of automatically delisting the item and kept it delisted for the entirety of the listing period even in the instances when prospective buyers failed to purchase the item deprived sellers of the full value of their listing. Plaintiff seeks recovery of fees paid for these listings. Plaintiff asserts six causes of action: (i) violation of California's False Advertising Law; (ii) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (iii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iv) violation of the Unfair Competition Law; (v) breach of quasi-contract; and (vi) declaratory judgment. On September 10, 2015, the Court granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, conditionally certified a settlement class, and appointed counsel. Plaintiff now seeks final approval of the class action settlement, and attorneys' fees in the amount of $300,000, reimbursable expenses in the amount of $13,050.04, and a class representative enhancement payment in the amount of $2,500. The Court received a written objection to the settlement from Daniel Zubia. In his Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/zSlUnq from Leagle.com, Judge Davila concluded that the requirements of Rule 23(b) remain satisfied and overruled Zubia's objection as unpersuasive. The Court held that the request for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative enhancement award is within the rage of reasonableness. Luis Rosado is represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP -- Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Rebecca Labat, Esq. -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq. -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Arvin Ratanavongse, Esq. Cody Robert Padgett, Esq. -- Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAWYERS APC -- David Lishian Cheng, Esq. -- dcheng@fordharrison.com -- FORD & HARRISON LLP -- and Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq. -- lweaver@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, SHARON G. YAACOBI eBay Inc. is represented by Whitty Somvichian, Esq. -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- and John C. Dwyer, Esq. -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP EL MILAGRO: "Solorzano" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages & Relief ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE SOLORZANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. EL, MILAGRO, INC, Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-07910 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks judgment in the amount of the monetary equivalent of all earned vacation pay due Plaintiffs and the Class as provided by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act(IWPCA); statutory damages; a declaration that Milagro's vacation policy violates the IWPCA; an order enjoining Defendant from violating the IWPCA in the future; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA. The Class consists of all Milagro's employees who earned vacation pay but did not receive a pro rata share of their earned vacation pay. Milagro maintains offices, restaurants and manufacturing facilities in Cook County, Illinois and has conducted and transacted business within Cook County, Illinois. The Defendant manufactures tortillas for purposes of wholesale and for use in the multiple restaurant locations that it owns and operates. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. Christopher J Williams, Esq. Neil Kelley, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC 53 W. Jackson blvd., Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 795 9121 ENAGIC USA: Class Certification Sought in "Makaron" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff moves for Class Certification and to be Appointed Class Counsel, in the class action lawsuit styled EDWARD MAKARON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENAGIC USA, INC., the Defendant, Case 2:15-cv-05145- DDP-E (C.D. Cal.). Accordingly Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class consisting of: "All persons within the United States who received any telephone calls from Defendant or one of its Distributor-Agents to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or rerecorded voice and such person had not previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint." The Plaintiff also asks the Court for his appointment as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WNkkVDeh The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com EXPEDIA INC: Travel Firms Liable for Hotel Occupancy Tax Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- Fourteen Illinois municipalities, on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated municipalities, sued a number of online travel companies alleging that they failed to remit taxes owed under plaintiffs' municipal hotel tax ordinances. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) & 1453. In October 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of 276 municipalities under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3), which the Court denied without prejudice to renewal. In September 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification of 154 municipalities under Rule 23(b)(3) alone. Since that time, one plaintiff -- City of Oakbrook Terrace -- voluntarily dismissed its claims against defendants. The remaining parties on both sides have moved for summary judgment on counts 1 and 2 of their complaint. They contend that summary judgment should be granted in their favor on count 1 because the evidence indisputably shows that online travel companies that sell rooms under the merchant model are subject to each municipality's hotel occupancy ordinance. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/uP61JD from Leagle.com, District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs as to liability on the Village of Lombard's claims under counts 1 and 2, holding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of defendants on Lombard's claims that defendants have failed to properly collect and remit taxes under its hotel room tax. The case is captioned, VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, CITY OF WARRENVILLE, CITY OF OAKBROOK TERRACE, VILLAGE OF OAK LAWN, VILLAGE OF ORLAND HILLS, CITY OF ROCKFORD, VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, VILLAGE OF BURR RIDGE, CITY OF DES PLAINES, VILLAGE OF LOMBARD, VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK, VILLAGE OF TINLEY PARK, and VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG, Plaintiffs, v. EXPEDIA, INC. (WA), HOTELS.COM, LP, HOTWIRE, INC., EGENCIA, LLC, TRIP NETWORK, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORP. (d/b/a LODGING.COM), PRICELINE.COM INCORPORATED (n/k/a THE PRICELINE GROUP INC.), PRICELINE.COM LLC, TRAVELWEB LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, SITE59.COM, LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE, Defendant, Case No. 13 C 5633 (N.D. Ill.). Village of Bedford Park, et al. are represented by Dominick L Lanzito, Esq. -- and -- Paul A O'Grady, Esq. -- PETERSON JOHNSON AND MURRAY, Donald J. Storino, Esq. -- dstorino@srd-law.com -- and Richard J. Ramello, Esq. -- rramello@srd-law.com -- STORINO, RAMELLO & DURKIN They are also represented by: John W. Crongeyer, Esq. CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, P.C. 2170 Defoor Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30318 Tel: (404) 542 6205 - and - Kristen L. Beightol, Esq. William Q. Bird, Esq. BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C. 2170 Defoor Hills Rd NW Atlanta, GA 30318 Tel: (404)873-4696 Expedia, Inc. is represented by Mark P. Rotatori, Esq. -- mprotatori@jonesday.com -- Meghan Sweeney Bean, Esq. -- msbean@jonesday.com -- and Nicole C. Henning, Esq. -- nchenning@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY Trip Network, Inc. is represented by Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, Esq. -- beth.herrington@morganlewis.com -- and Mark Jacob Altschul, Esq. -- mark.altschul@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -- and Jeffrey A. Rossman, Esq. -- jrossman@freeborn.com -- FREEBORN & PETERS LLP FARMERS INSURANCE: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Wilson" Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Amy D. Hogue of the California Court of Appeals affirmed an order denying class certification in the case captioned, AUDREY WILSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B260729 (Cal. App.). Plaintiffs Audrey Wilson, Helene Diamond, and Connie Gilbert were employed as claims adjusters in Farmers Insurance Exchange's commercial liability group. Their operative second amended complaint alleges Farmers improperly classified claims adjusters on its commercial liability lines as "exempt" employees. As a result of the alleged misclassification, the complaint asserts Farmers unlawfully required claims adjusters to work uncompensated overtime and without off-duty meal and rest periods, while failing to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs argued the misclassification claim could be resolved on a class basis because all of Farmers's claims adjusters performed the same primary job duties. The trial court denied the motion, finding the proposed class and subclasses lacked the requisite community of interest. Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion for class certification, contending that the trial court improperly ruled on the merits of their misclassification claims and erroneously concluded Farmers's interrogatory responses were insufficient to establish class liability on their theory of recovery. In her Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xRj3D1 from Leagle.com, Judge Hogue held that the court did not err in ruling individual inquiries were necessary to determine whether a particular claims adjuster's work satisfied the directly related prong of the administrative exemption. As the trial court concluded, all of these differences will be relevant to determining whether an individual adjuster's qualitatively administrative work was "of substantial importance to the management or operation of the business." Audrey Wilson, et al. are represented by Michael Rubin, Esq. - Mmrubin@altber.com -- and Peder J. Thoreen, Esq. -- pthoreen@altber.com -- ALTSHULER BERZON They are also represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. Kitty Szeto, Esq. John M. Bickford , Esq. R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th St W Lancaster, CA 93534 Tel: (661)949-2595 Farmers Insurance Exchange is represented by Andrew M. Paley, Esq. -- apaley@seyfarth.com -- James M. Harris, Esq. -- jharris@seyfarth.com -- Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq. -- sskibbe@seyfarth.com -- and Kiran Aftab Seldon, Esq. -- kseldon@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW FINE FINISH: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Non-Payment of OT Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN MICKEVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINE FINISH, INC., FINE FINISH CUSTOM CARPENTRY, INC., PETER MURRAY and IRENE MURRAY, the Defendants, Case No. 16-1682 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks overtime wages from Defendants pursuant to the Massachusetts Overtime Law. Mr. Mickevich also asks the Court to: 1. certify this action as a class action; 2. appoint Mr. Mickevich as class representative; and 3. award treble damages, interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs for non-payment of overtime wages on behalf of Mr. Mickevich and the class. The class consists of all hourly employees of the defendants who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek, but were not paid at a rate of one and one-half-times their regular rate of pay for overtime hours, at any time during the three-year period prior to the commencement of this action. Fine Finish specializes in custom molding, complicated radial design, sequenced panels, or custom balusters. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charlotte Drew, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 338 9400 E-mail: cdrew@mass-legal.com FORGE: Liquidator Mulls Class Action Against Former Directors ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Williams, writing for The West Australian, reports that the liquidator of Forge Group is seeking funding to investigate the prospects of legal action against former directors of the collapsed engineering company. The move could include public examinations of ex-board members of Forge, which left debts of about $800 million when it folded in early 2014. Liquidator Ferrier Hodgson has previously obtained litigation funding from IMF Bentham to investigate insider trading claims against engineering company Clough, once Forge's biggest shareholder. In an annual report to creditors, the insolvency specialist said negotiations with a litigation funder were substantially advanced for investigating "other causes of action". Ferrier Hodgson partner Martin Jones -- martin.jones@fh.com.au -- said directors and other third parties could be the subjects of such action. "At the moment we just don't have enough money to conduct a thorough investigation to see whether those claims may or may not arise," Mr. Jones told WestBusiness. Mr. Jones said investigations of the Clough claims were at a preliminary stage. Examinations of Clough officials would also be pursued. The liquidator has so far failed to grill executives of Samsung C&T in court in connection with the Roy Hill iron ore project manager's seizure of $111 million in Forge bond money. Samsung has held off the examinations through a series of legal challenges, including that the claims be heard by an arbitrator in Singapore. The report said a subpoena that prevented a substantive hearing on the matter had been resolved in the liquidator's favor but had further delayed the process. Ferrier Hodgson is also defending Forge against a class action suit by former shareholders in the Federal Court. Neither the liquidator nor receiver KordaMentha Restructuring is involved in a NSW Supreme Court action by bond issuers Assetinsure and QBE Insurance against the insurers of Forge's directors. That case also relates to the seizure of bonds for the Roy Hill project. The report said the Federal Government had paid about $20 million in compensation in response to claims by 1656 former Forge employees. The payout fell about $13 million short of claimed entitlements in line with caps on individual payouts and eligibility. FRITO-LAY: Court Denies Preliminary Approval of "Sanchez" Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval and conditional class certification in the case captioned, ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-00797- DAD-MJS (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Eliazar Sanchez filed the putative class action in state court on April 11, 2014. The complaint states 10 causes of action under California law: (1) failure to pay regular hourly wages, (2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to pay the correct overtime rate of pay, (4) failure to pay premium wages for denial of meal and rest periods, (5) failure to pay vested vacation wages, (6) illegal deductions of vested vacation wages, (7) breach of contract for failure to pay vested wages, (8) failure to pay final wages due upon termination, (9) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and (10) violations of California Unfair Competition Law. First, plaintiff alleges defendant Frito-Lay engaged in a company- wide practice by which employees were denied a second meal period for every shift of ten or more hours. Second, plaintiff alleges Frito-Lay's company-wide practice and written rest break policy failed to authorize and permit a third rest break for shifts of ten or more hours. After submitting to mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement. On December 11, 2014, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement and conditional certification of the class. On August 5, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the motion be denied after concluding that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information to establish a class or to permit a determination that the proposed settlement falls within the range of possible approval. The then-assigned district judge adopted those findings and recommendations and denied plaintiff's motion. On December 4, 2015, the case was reassigned and on January 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval and conditional class certification in response to the court's findings and included additional factual evidence supported by declarations of plaintiff Sanchez and his counsel. In the motion, the plaintiff proposed a class of "all present and former employees of Frito-Lay, Inc. in the State of California who have held the title of Maintenance Mechanic or any similar position at any point between April 11, 2010, and March 10, 2015." The parties agree to establish a settlement fund of $600,000.00, inclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses; the incentive payment to the named plaintiff; payment to the Labor Workforce Development Agency; and all costs of administration, including settlement administration fees. In his Order dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/C1DNoL from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the Amended Settlement is fair or reasonable in light of the evidence before the court and because the court denies preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, it also declines to address whether plaintiff has provided sufficient information to certify the class for settlement purposes. Eliazar Sanchez is represented by: Brian D. Chase, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. BISNAR CHASE, LLP 1301 Dove St #120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 203-3814 Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha D. Hardy, Esq. -- shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Ashley Teiko Hirano, Esq. -- ahirano@sheppardmullin.com -- and Daniel Francisco De La Cruz, Esq. -- ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP GATEWAY FUNDING: Courts Grants Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John R. Padova of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Authorizing Notice to Similarly Situated Persons Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) in the case captioned, CESAR ROCHA and RALPH JETER, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GATEWAY FUNDING DIVERSIFIED MORTGAGE SERVICES, L.P, Case No. 15-482 (E.D. Pa.). Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P. is a mortgage lender with more than 50 branch offices, which markets home loans to residential customers across the country through nearly 500 loan officers. Plaintiffs Cesar Rocha and Ralph Jeter were employed by the said company. Plaintiffs have brought the matter as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., and as a class action pursuant to New Jersey law. They contend that their former employer, Gateway, misclassified them as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA and New Jersey law and failed to pay them required minimum and overtime wages. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and the prospective members of the collective class did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours of work per week. The Complaint asserts two claims pursuant to the FLSA and two claims pursuant to New Jersey law. Count I asserts a claim on behalf of the FLSA Collective for failure to pay required minimum wages in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(a)(1)(C). Count II asserts a claim on behalf of the FLSA Collective for failure to pay required overtime wages in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a)(1). Count III asserts a claim on behalf of Plaintiff Jeter and a sub-class of individuals who were employed as inside sales Loan Officers for Gateway in the state of New Jersey at any time during the maximum limitations period (the New Jersey Sub-Class) for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. 34:11-56(a)(4) and N.J. Admin. Count IV asserts a claim on behalf of Plaintiff Jeter and the New Jersey Sub-Class for failure to pay for all hours worked in violation of N.J. Admin. The proposed class is defined as "All People who worked as inside sales Loan Officers for Defendant, its subsidiaries, or affiliated companies at any time during the maximum limitations period who worked more than 40 hours in any week without receiving all overtime compensation required by federal law or wages over the required minimum level for every hour worked." In the motion, Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), and asked the Court to authorize the service of their proposed Notice "to a seventeen-state putative collective defined to include all persons Gateway employed as a commission-only Loan Officer during any workweek in the last three years. " Gateway opposes conditional certification of the putative FLSA Collective on four grounds: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to identify a company-wide policy or practice that is actually unlawful; (2) Plaintiffs have failed to establish that that such policy or practice applies to all of Gateway's loan officers nationwide; (3) Plaintiff's claims would require individualized determinations that may not be adjudicated efficiently through a collective action; and (4) Plaintiffs are bound by a decision declining to conditionally certify a FLSA collective in a similar case in another court. In his Memorandum dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/AuG8ez from Leagle.com, Judge Padova concluded that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for conditional certification of a FLSA collective because they make a "modest factual showing" that the employees described in the Complaint as members of the proposed collective "can be provisionally categorized as similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs." Cesar Rocha and Ralph Jeter are represented by David J. Cohen, Esq. -- dcohen@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP; and Erik H. Langeland, Esq. -- elangeland@tostrudlaw.com -- and Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- TOSTRUD LAW GROUP PC Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, LP is represented by Frederick G. Sandstrom, Esq. -- Sandstrom@BlanRome.com -- and Jenna Berman, Esq. -- Jberman@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP GAW MINERS: Group of Customers File Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that an angry group of former customers has sued a collapsed Bitcoin mining company, GAW Miners, in a proposed class-action lawsuit. The group alleges that it was duped by the company and its founders. This is the second civil suit filed against the company within the last six months -- it was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission in December 2015 over similar accusations of fraud. The SEC alleged $19 million worth of fraudulent deals. (That SEC case was put on hold for six months, starting in April 2016, according to court records.) In early 2014, GAW Miners was first introduced to the Bitcoin public by re-selling mining rigs. Later, the company shifted to cloud-based mining (Hashlets), and in early 2015, it introduced its own altcoin, dubbed "Paycoin." GAW also tried its hand at its own cloud-based wallet service (Paybase) and its own online discussion board (HashTalk). For about a year, there has been active speculation amongst the Bitcoin community that GAW may be a scam or at least could be engaged in illegal behavior. There have been threads both on BitcoinTalk and reddit with titles like "GAW Miners - Liars, Frauds - A brief recap of what we know." According to the suit, GAW founders Joshua Homero Garza and Stuart Fraser (who at the time was a vice president at the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald) scammed those that paid money, believing they were getting something for that payment. The four named plaintiffs, who seek unspecified damages, hope to represent the approximately 10,000 customers that they say were taken for a ride by Garza and Fraser. As the plaintiffs allege: Defendants' activities had the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme. Because defendants sold far more computing power than they owned and dedicated to virtual currency mining (with respect to hosted mining services and Hashlets), they owed investors a return that was larger than any actual return they were making on their limited mining operations. Investors were simply paid back gradually over time, as "returns," the money that they and others had invested in GAW Miners' products and paid to GAW Miners for purported "maintenance" fees. In January 2015, Garza told Ars that he "started the company because of scammers." He claimed that he first heard of Bitcoin around a year ago, at which point he tried to buy a hardware mining rig and "spent $100,000 for a product I never got." He declined to say which company he purchased the rig from. "I'd never had any experience with that -- realizing a couple weeks later that these guys didn't care how much money I can afford to lose," he said. "I got really frustrated and thought we should start a company to try to fix this." Garza told Ars that GAW made "over $1 million in sales our first month," adding that within a few months, "we leveled at $60 million to $80 million per year." At the time, Garza claimed the company had 100,000 customers, with "10,000 to 15,000 new accounts per day." Neither Garza, nor Fraser, nor Garza's attorneys have responded to Ars' request for comment. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in "Volin" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint in the case captioned, SYLVIA VOLIN, Plaintiff, Civ. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-4111 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.). On January 30, 2013, Sylvia Volin, a resident of Tenafly, New Jersey, purchased a GE-branded 30" Free Standing Gas Range Oven for $1,087 from Oberg & Lindquist, a GE-authorized dealer, in Westwood, New Jersey. Volin brings the putative class action against the defendant for damages relating to the allegedly defective design of gas range ovens. The complaint asserts six causes of action, for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq.; breach of implied warranties; breach of express warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 12A2-101 et seq.; the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301; unjust enrichment; and the New Jersey Products Liability Act. Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In his Opinion dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/nqkdKM from Leagle.com, Judge McNulty granted the motion to dismiss as to Count III, to the extent it alleges a breach of an express warranty of fitness and that the goods would be free from the alleged safety defect, and as to Count VI. Dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of an Amended Complaint within 30 days. Dismissal of the remaining claims are denied since they were sufficiently alleged. Plaintiffs are represented by Michael F. Brady, Esq. -- tbrady@tbradyandassociates.com -- Sara Tess Ballew, Esq. -- sballew@tbradyassociates.com -- and Mark A. Kistler, Esq. -- mkistler@tbradyandassciates.com -- BRADY AND ASSOCIATES EGS Financial Care, Inc. represented by David Israel, Esq. -- disrael@sessions.legal -- and Justin Homes, Esq. -- jhomes@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.C., Gregory K. Wu, Esq. -- gwu@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP GENUINE TITLE: Court Narrows Claims in "Fangman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled on motions to dismiss filed by several defendants in the case captioned, EDWARD J. AND VICKI FANGMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENUINE TITLE, LLC, et al. Defendants, Case No. RDB-14-0081 (D. Md.). Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in the putative class action, alleges violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Sections 2607(a), (b), and Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. Sec. 14-127 (Section 14- 127)(Count I) by Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 14-127 alone against Defendant Eagle National Bank. Defendants West Town, Net Equity, Wells Fargo, PNC, Eagle National, MetLife, Competitive Advantage, Dog Days Marketing, Chase, and E Mortgage Management have filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. Sec. 14-127, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants have contended that Section 14-127 does not contain a private right of action under Maryland state real estate law. In his Memorandum Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/FiqpRr from Leagle.com, Judge Bennett granted in part all motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint previously stayed by the Court with respect to Plaintiffs' Section 14-127 claims because Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for relief under Section 14-127 in the putative class action since Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. Sec. 14-127 does not contain a private right of action. The Court further ruled that Eagle National Bank's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is granted in its totality because Plaintiffs' Section 14-127 claim against Defendant Eagle National Bank was the only remaining claim against that Defendant. The action survives only with respect to Plaintiffs' federal claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Sections 2607(a), (b), against Defendants Genuine Title, Brandon Glickstein, Inc.; Dog Days Marketing, Competitive Advantage, Wells Fargo, West Town, PNC, MetLife, Net Equity, E Mortgage Management, and Chase. Edward J. Fangman,et al. are represented by Michael Paul Smith, Esq. -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- and Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq. -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- SMITH GILDEA AND SCHMIDT LLC They are also represented by: Timothy Francis Maloney, Esq. Veronica Byam Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH GREENWALD AND LAAKE PA 6404 Ivy Ln #400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Tel: (301)220-2200 Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media Group, LLC and Dog Days Marketing, LLC are represented by Ari Karen, Esq. -- akaren@offitkurman.com -- and Gregory P. Currey, Esq. -- Gcurrey@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. and Wells Fargo, N.A. are represented by Russell J. Pope, Esq. -- rjpope@tph-law.com -- and Virginia Wood Barnhart, Esq. -- vwbarnhart@tph-law.com -- TREANOR POPE AND HUGHES PA -- and John Augustine Bourgeois, Esq. -- jbourgeois@kg-law.com -- KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA GREEN TREE: Judge Sends "Buckles" Dispute to Nev. Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, SANFORD BUCKLES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC and WALTER INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-01581-GMN-(CWH) (D. Nev.), Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Ditech's motion to dismiss and certified questions of Nevada statutory law to the Nevada Supreme Court. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against mortgage servicer Ditech, claiming it violated Nevada Revised Statutes 200.620 by recording telephone conversations involving him and other class members without each class member's consent. Plaintiff defined the class to include "All persons in Nevada whose inbound and outbound telephone conversations were monitored, recorded, and/or eavesdropped upon without their consent by Ditech within three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in the action." Ditech moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (1) that Nevada Revised Statutes 200.620 does not govern telephone calls recorded by persons outside Nevada on equipment located outside of Nevada, and (2) that the United States Constitution precludes extraterritorial application of Nevada Revised Statutes 200.620 to telephone recordings made outside of Nevada. The Parties have met and conferred on the issue but could not agree as to the language of the question(s) of law to be certified to the Nevada Supreme Court. Plaintiff's proposed question: "Does Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 apply to telephone recordings made by a party outside Nevada, who regularly records telephone conversations with Nevada residents, of telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that person's consent?" Defendant's proposed question: "Does Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 apply to telephone recordings made by a party outside Nevada who uses equipment outside Nevada to record telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that person's consent? If so, does that decision apply retroactively or prospectively only?" In her Certification Order dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/tsxWnm from Leagle.com, Judge Navarro held that Ditech's motion to dismiss turns on a dispositive question of Nevada's statutory law best decided by the Nevada Supreme Court, since "there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the state" and give Ditech permission to renew the motion within 30 days of the resolution of the Court's certified question to the Nevada Supreme Court. As to the questions of law, the Court believes there is "no controlling precedent" from the Nevada Supreme Court on these precise "questions of law" and therefore has decided to certify the questions to that court. Sanford Buckles is represented by: David H. Krieger, Esq. HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC 5041 N Rainbow Blvd Las Vegas, NV 89130 Tel: (702)666-0668 - and - Michael Kind, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 7854 W Sahara Ave Las Vegas, NV 89117 Tel: (800) 520-5523 Green Tree Servicing LLC is represented by Gregg A. Hubley, Esq. -- ghubley@brookshubley.com -- and Michael R. Brooks, Esq. -- mbrooks@brookshubley.com -- BROOKS HUBLEY, LLP, Michael R. Pennington, Esq. -- mpennington@bradley.com -- and Elizabeth A. Hamrick, Esq. -- ehamick@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP H2O HAIR: Court Rejects LUTPA Claim in "Biggio" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Carrie Biggio, et al. are employed as hair stylists at H2O Hair, Inc. (H2O). Plaintiffs assert claims individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages among other state law claims. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants required them to sign a Training Agreement and Contract, requiring H2O to train the Plaintiffs as part of an apprenticeship program, which Defendants unilaterally valued at $8,000. Plaintiffs also claim that they were not compensated for the training sessions. Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiffs' Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, Defendants contend that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the LUTPA claims because they do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact with the FLSA claims. Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot maintain their claims under LUTPA because they have not alleged an "ascertainable loss of money or property" resulting from the unfair trade practices. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert LUTPA claims in this proceeding because LA. STAT. ANN. Sec. 51:1409 expressly prohibits parties form bringing LUTPA claims in a representative capacity. The motion derives from a previous Order and Reasons issued by the Court that granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint so that they could fully address certain claims for "gap wages," which they first raised in an opposition to an earlier motion filed by Defendants. In his Order and Reasons dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/YuKxwr from Leagle.com, District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that under the unambiguous terms of the LUTPA, Biggio and Luminais may not maintain a claim under the Act because they are proceeding in a representative capacity. The case is captioned, CARRIE BIGGIO, et al. v. H20 HAIR INC., et al, Case No. 15-6034 (E.D. La.). Carrie Biggio and Chelsea Luminais are represented by: Kenneth Charles Bordes, Esq. KENNETH C. BORDES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 917 Neyrey Dr. Metairie, LA 70001 Michael John Gaspard and Holli M. Gaspard are represented by: Kenneth Charles Fonte, Esq. Edmund Werner Golden, Esq. John Arnold Kopfinger, Jr., Esq. GOLDEN & FONTE 1 Galleria Blvd # 1822 Metairie, LA 70001 Tel: (504)849-2600 HALLMARK CARDS: Faces "Strougo" Suit Over Crown Media Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ BARBARA STROUGO, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HALLMARK CARDS, INC., DONALD JOYCE HALL, JR., WILLIAM J. ABBOTT, DWIGHT C. ARN, MOLLY BIWER, ROBERT C. BLOSS, WILLIAM CELLA, GLENN CURTIS, BRIAN E. GARDNER, A. DRUE JENNINGS, PETER A. LUND, JAMES C. SHAY, and DEANNE R. STEDEM, Defendants, Case No. 12476- (Del. Ch., June 17, 2016), was filed on behalf of the former public minority stockholders of Crown Media Holdings, Inc., in relation to a merger with Hallmark Cards, Inc. Hallmark retails greeting cards and gifts. Hallmark sells paper party supplies, gifts, wrapping papers, ornaments, decorative items, and customized photo cards. Hallmark Cards serves customers throughout the United States. 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 Phone: (302) 295-5310 - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Gets Favorable Ruling in Flooding Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meagan Flynn, writing for Houston Press, reports that the Texas Supreme Court dealt a blow on June 17 to hundreds of families whose homes were ruined by 1998's Tropical Storm Frances, 2001's Tropical Storm Allison and a 2002 flooding event. The high court dismissed a class-action lawsuit that Edward and Norma Jean Kerr filed 15 years ago against the Harris County Flood Control District on behalf of roughly 400 families, claiming that the district essentially turned their Jersey Village neighborhood near the White Oak Bayou into a stormwater detention basin for upstream commercial developments. The Kerrs blamed the flooding on the district's failure to complete regional flood plans that had been in the works for years. They also alleged the district failed to enforce its own policy requiring upstream commercial developers to build their own stormwater detention ponds. Because the district had known about the flooding risks since as early as 1976, according to court documents, the plaintiffs argued that its lack of action to protect them from substantial flooding should make the district liable for property damages the homeowners incurred. The Kerrs, for example, faced roughly $80,000 in damages following Allison in 2001 -- and that was with flood insurance. Prominent Houston environmental attorney Jim Blackburn, who represented the plaintiffs, told us back then, "My view is, the county was just hoping people wouldn't flood. I don't think hoping people won't flood is sufficient to get around liability under the Texas Constitution." However, the Supreme Court on June 17 ruled that it doesn't see how the county could have known about possible floods while approving development plans and saw no major flaws with the White Oak Bayou regional flood-control plan. Therefore, the court concluded, county officials should not be at fault. Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan, in a statement, celebrated the victory. Mr. Ryan said a ruling in favor of the homeowners would have discouraged governments from developing further flood-control plans for "fear of possible liability claims." Residents affected by past and recent flooding in Harris County, however, may find Mr. Ryan's reaction tone-deaf. The Supreme Court ruling comes amid even more outrage from Houstonians following the April and May flooding events that led President Barack Obama to twice issue a disaster declaration in Harris County. More than 10,000 families have been approved for FEMA assistance since April 24, tallying more than $60 million in federal relief funds. And dozens of residents have again blamed city and county leaders for failing to do more to prevent the flooding. After the Memorial Day flood event in 2015, the Houston Press's Steven Jansen reported on the federal flood-prevention project along Brays Bayou that had somehow managed to fall eight years behind, despite the threat of a looming 100-year flood (or multiple, as we have now learned). After the April 18 flood, he revisited the Meyerland residents -- who now feel as if they are the detention pond for the Texas Medical Center, also thanks to what they believe are development and planning failures. Most recently, just before Memorial Day weekend (and yet another flooding event), Residents Against Flooding filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston and Memorial City's redevelopment authority, arguing the city approved commercial developments in the area without thinking about flood prevention for nearby residential areas. Mary Conner, who is representing Residents Against Flooding in the new case, disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling on June 17. She said citizens have long been angry over local flood- control plans. "What people want to hear is not for the government to wave their hands and say, 'Leave me alone; I'm not at fault,' but for the government to say, 'Gosh, this is a real problem -- we're gonna find a solution,'" Ms. Conner said. Ms. Conner cautioned against any comparisons of the Residents Against Flooding lawsuit to the Kerrs' class-action suit. For one, Residents Against Flooding is not asking for any money -- it's asking the city to take action and fix flooding infrastructure problems. While the class action claimed that Harris County essentially "took" the residents' property because it was liable for the flooding, RAF is arguing the city arbitrarily chose to protect commercial developers from flooding but did nothing to protect nearby residents. The group believes that in doing so, Houston violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. Just as the Kerrs argued that Harris County officials knew for decades about the threat of dangerous flooding, Residents Against Flooding claims its efforts to protect commercial developers for the past ten years prove the city knew, too. "So many studies have been done. They know what they need to do," Ms. Conner said. "They need to build some detention ponds. They need to make improvements in drainage. They know the solutions, but they're not doing them." Turner said at a press conference he was committed to addressing drainage issues, but could not fix them immediately, and could not promise that the city would not flood again in the meantime. HOBBS TRUCKING: Bid for Collective Action Certification Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted in part plaintiff's a Motion for Collective Action Certification and Expedited Court-Facilitated Notice in the case captioned, ANTHONY YOUNG, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOBBS TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. and STEPHANIE KEITH, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV- 991 (M.D. Tenn.). The plaintiff, Anthony Young, is a former employee of the defendants, Hobbs Trucking Company, Inc. and Stephanie Keith. Mr. Young worked for the defendants as a dump truck driver from 2014 to September 4, 2015. Mr. Young filed this action pursuant to Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of himself and other current and former employees of the defendants. Mr. Young alleges that the defendants failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours per week. Mr. Young alleges that, until the defendants changed their pay practices in February of 2015, he and other drivers were paid a flat rate of $115 per day for each day that they worked, regardless of how many hours they worked in a day. Mr. Young further alleges that, throughout his employment with the defendants, he worked more than forty hours per week "on a regular and repeated basis" but was never paid overtime wages. On February 22, 2016, Mr. Young filed the Motion for Collective Action Certification and Expedited Court-Facilitated Notice. Mr. Young seeks conditional certification of his FLSA claim and court- authorized notice to all "current and former employees of the defendants who worked as drivers at the defendants' Murfreesboro, Tennessee location at any time during the last three years." He also requests that the defendants provide him with a "computer readable data file" containing the name, last known address, last known email address, and dates of employment for each such employee. Mr. Young requests that the notice be issued by (1) first class mail, (2) posting "in the break rooms" of the defendants' Murfreesboro location, and (3) dissemination with putative class members' paychecks. Finally, Mr. Young requests that the court approve his proposed form of notice, which is attached to the motion. In her Memorandum and Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/2a8Em8 from Leagle.com, Judge Trauger concluded that Mr. Young has provided sufficient factual support to demonstrate that conditional certification of his FLSA claim is appropriate but the court considers the defendants' objections to certain aspects of the notice proposed by Mr. Young, including its content and manner of publication. The Court directed the parties to file with the court agreed-upon notice and consent forms consistent with the findings within 20 days of the date of the Order. Anthony Young, Plaintiff, represented by: Kerry E. Knox, Esq. CASTELLI & KNOX, LLP 117 S Academy St Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Tel: (615)896-1000 Hobbs Trucking Company, Inc. and Stephanie Keith are represented by James K. Simms, IV, Esq. -- jk@thompsonburton.com -- and Jennifer M. Lankford, Esq. -- Jennifer@thompsonburton.com -- THOMPSON BURTON PLLC HOMEOPET LLC: Must Send Notice to Attorney General -------------------------------------------------- District Judge James D. Peterson prompts defendant to file proof that it has mailed notice to the Attorney General of the United States by certified or registered mail and likewise directed the clerk of court to send a copy of this order to the Attorney General of the United States and to the United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1, a party whose pleading calls into question the constitutionality of a federal statute must provide notice to the Attorney General of the United States. The case, decided on June 2, 2016, is DAIRYLAND ANIMAL CLINIC, S.C., Plaintiff, v. HOMEOPET, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. No. 16-cv-147-jdp. (W.D. Wisc.). Dairyland Animal Clinic, S.C. alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. Dairyland alleges that defendants sent it and at least 25 others an unsolicited fax in January 2015. A copy of the decision is available at http://goo.gl/RpsMcWfrom Leagle.com. Dairyland Animal Clinic, S.C., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson + Wanca & Ryan Michael Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca. Homeopet, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Michael D. Leffel -- mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner & Eric Joseph Hatchell -- ehatchell@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP. HORTONWORKS INC: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Michael J. Davis of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California appointed Randall A. Arvidson as Lead Counsel and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel in the case captioned, WILLIAM MONACHELLI, Plaintiff, v. HORTONWORKS, INC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-00980-SI (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff William Monachelli brings the class action lawsuit for violation of the federal securities laws against defendants Hortonworks, Inc., Robert G. Bearden, and Scott J. Davidson. He sues on behalf of a class of persons who bought or otherwise acquired the common stock of Hortonworks between November 4, 2015, and January 15, 2016 (the class period), both dates inclusive. He brings claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The suit alleges that defendants made "materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, cash position, prospects, and internal controls." On April 29, 2016, Babu Pinnamraju and Randall A. Arvidson filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 12, 2016, Pinnamraju filed a statement of non-opposition to Arvidson's motion. In his Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/5be2iD from Leagle.com, Judge Illston found that Arvidson is properly the most adequate plaintiff and approved his selection of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. William Monachelli is represented by J. Alexander Hood, Esq. -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Esq. -- mltucillo@pomlaw.com -- and Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP Hortonworks, Inc., Robert G. Bearden and Scott J. Davidson are represented by Jordan Eth, Esq. -- jeth@mofo.com -- Anna Erickson White, Esq. -- awhite@mofo.com -- and Ryan M. Keats, Esq. -- rkeats@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP HUDSON COUNTY: Brodowski Seeks Damages v. Community College ----------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BRODOWSKI, and all other individuals similarly situated. the Plaintiff, v. HUDSON COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE; DR. GLEN GABERT and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-2418-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks judgment with compensatory damages for emotional distress and personal hardship, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back pay, equitable front pay, equitable reinstatement, equitable instatement or promotion, and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just. According to the complaint, Plaintiff disclosed to members of upper management that he reasonably believed that the actions of Torturelli and others at the college changing the terms of a contract after it was bid, was in violation of a law, a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, fraud, or actions incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy. In acting as he did, plaintiff objected to and refused to participate in activities, policies, and practices which he reasonably believed were in violation of a law, a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, an act of fraud, or actions incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy. Subsequent to Plaintiff engaging in this protected activity by making these complaints, objecting to these actions, and refusing to participate in this activity, he was subjected to retaliation that included discipline, and indefinite suspension and ultimately being terminated from his employment. The Defendant is a public institution operating in the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727 9700 INNERWORKINGS INC: October 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by LABATON SUCHAROW LLP regarding the InnerWorkings Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PETER IKAI VAN NOPPEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. INNERWORKINGS, INC., ERIC D. BELCHER, and JOSEPH M. BUSKY, Defendants. Case No. 1:14-cv-01416 TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK AND/OR CALL OPTIONS, AND/OR SOLD THE PUT OPTIONS, OF INNERWORKINGS, INC. ("INNERWORKINGS" OR THE "COMPANY") DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2012 THROUGH NOVEMBER 6, 2013, INCLUSIVE, (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that Lead Plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement System, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, on the one hand, and InnerWorkings, Eric D. Belcher and Joseph M. Busky (collectively with InnerWorkings, the "Defendants"), on the other, have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $6,025,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable John Robert Blakey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in Courtroom 1725, United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 at 9:45 a.m. on October 13, 2016 to, among other things, determine whether: (a) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of May 11, 2016; (c) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and any accrued interest, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (d) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses should be approved. The Court may change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its website: InnerWorkings Securities Litigation c/o GCG, LLC P.O. Box 10291 Dublin, OH 43017-5891 855-907-3241 www.InnerWorkingsClassSettlement.com Inquiries may also be made to Lead Counsel: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Jonathan Gardner, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 888-219-6877 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received on or before October 8, 2016, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. If you do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments and orders entered in the Action. To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that it is received on or before September 21, 2016. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by all judgments and orders entered in the Action. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that it is received on or before September 21, 2016. If you submit an objection, you have the right, but are not required, to attend the Settlement Hearing; if you wish to speak at the Settlement Hearing, you must include in your written objection a statement that you intend to appear and speak at the Settlement Hearing. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: June 20, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS INT'L ASSOCIATION: Doping Class Action Appeal Heads to Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Reuters' Vladimir Soldatkin, citing R-Sport news agency, reports that Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko said on June 19 the world athletics governing body, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), has unfairly shifted blame for the doping scandal onto Russia's athletics federation and should be disbanded. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) on June 18 backed the IAAF's decision to extend its ban on Russia for systematic doping, ending any slim hopes that Russian athletes might have had of competing at the Rio Games in August. The decision is being contested by the Russian athletes: race- walkers Denis Nizhegorodov and Svetlana Vasilyeva launched an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport over the decision to uphold the doping ban, which would bar them from competing in Rio, All Sport news agency reported. The agency quoted Andrey Mitkov, a sports agent, as saying that the "class action" appeal was set to be delivered to the court in Lausanne on June 21. The president of the IAAF Sebastian Coe has said that Russia has made some progress in tackling the use of prohibited substances by athletes, but it was "not enough" to lift the ban. "In essence, by shifting the responsibility to the All-Russia Athletics Federation, they have exonerated themselves from responsibility. The IAAF should be disbanded," Mr. Mutko was quoted as saying on June 19. The IAAF suspended Russia last year over concerns its athletes were guilty of systematic doping. INTEGRATED AIRLINES: "Haurat" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Haurat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Integrated Airline Services, Inc., the Defendant, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC623647 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' violations of California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders. According to the complaint, the Defendants have increased their profits by violating the following state wage and hour laws: a. Failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages); b. Failing to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu; c. Failing to authorize or permit rest break or provide compensation in lieu; d. Failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; e. Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and f. Failing to reimpburse all business expenses. Integrated Airline provides tailor-made passenger, cargo, and ramp handling services to air carriers in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, 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 E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Sued Over Defective Mitral Valve Instrument --------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL FERNANDO NASSAR CURE and ALAN M. KOZARSKY, M.D., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC., INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01948-ODE (N.D. Ga., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover damages including but not limited to the lodging of metal fragments in their brains, physical, neurological, and mental effects, including but not limited to emotional distress, and past medical expenses, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' defective design of their instruments. Mr. Nassar, Dr. Kozarsky and the Class have suffered injuries and damages, and are also anticipated to incur future medical expenses and lose future wages. Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold and/or introduced into interstate commerce one or more instruments that would ultimately be used in mitral valve repair surgeries performed on Mr. Nassar on June 19, 2015 and Dr. Kozarsky on June 16, 2015, at Saint Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta, as well as mitral valve repair surgeries to be performed on Class members at other hospitals throughout the country. According to the complaint, Defendants knew or had reason to know of defects in the Instrument used in such surgeries, including but not limited to that artifacts consistent with metallic microemboli had been found on brain MRIs of patients resulting from mitral valve repairs using the Instrument and/or similar instruments. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Q. Bird, Esq. Kristen L. Beightol, Esq. Paul I. Hotchkiss, Esq. Alexandria S. Cash, Esq. BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C. 2170 Defoor Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 873 4696 - and - John W. Crongeyer, Esq. CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, P.C. 2170 Defoor Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 542 6205 ISORAY MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Lung Cancer Study Results ----------------------------------------------------------------- Annette Cary, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that IsoRay Medical of Richland says it acted in good faith and met the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission when it released a news release that led to a lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit have asked that it be certified as a class action. The news release, which described results of a study looking at lung cancer treatment with an Isoray medical isotope product, was quickly followed by a near doubling of the stock price under what was heavy trading for the stock. The news release was issued on May 19, 2015, and the stock price went from $1.62 a share to $3.12 the next day. But on May 21, 2015, the investment website The Street posted an article with the headline "IsoRay Takes Liberties With Lung Cancer Study Results to Prop Up Stock Price." The share price dropped by about a third that day with 52 million trades made, which was 37 times the usual daily volume of trades. Within days, the stock was back to its usual price before the news release. The lawsuit claims violations of federal securities laws. It seeks damages for those who bought the stock as its price rose based on what plaintiffs say was information that mischaracterized the findings of the lung cancer study. The 2015 IsoRay news release said that its lung cancer treatment had 96 percent success in local control and 100 percent patient survival at five years in high risk patients according to a new peer-reviewed study published in the on-line journal Brachytherapy. The IsoRay treatment relies on seeds of radioactive cesium implanted during cancer-removal surgery to release radiation to kill remaining cancer cells. In contrast, conventional radiation requires many trips to a hospital or clinic for treatment. The study compared IsoRay results with surgery alone and surgery with more traditional radiation. But the news release failed to make clear that other treatments used historically, such as surgery plus more traditional radiation, provided equivalent rates of local cancer control, plaintiffs said. It also did not make clear that the five-year survival rate for surgery plus the IsoRay radiation treatment was not significantly different than for patients who had only surgery, plaintiffs said. IsoRay said the news release linked to the online study. "It is implausible that the analysts and investors who followed IsoRay and anticipated the release of the study would fail to read the complete study when it became available," IsoRay said in court documents. Had the company been intending to mislead investors and analysts, it would not have pointed them to the study, IsoRay said. While there was no cost to read the abstract of the study, reading the full study required a $35.95 subscription fee, plaintiffs argued. Plaintiffs also complained that IsoRay did not say in the news release that it sponsored the study, giving money to the doctor who conducted it. Earlier this month, U.S. Judge Lonny Suko declined to dismiss the lawsuit against IsoRay. IsoRay in a statement said that the judge found that allegations against the company, if true, state a plausible claim for legal relief. "The order did not adjudicate the merits of the lawsuit," the IsoRay statement said. "No other issues were decided in the ruling." A trial date has not been set. JACKSON, MI: Settles Class Action Over Misdemeanor Case Arrests --------------------------------------------------------------- Chevel Johnson, writing for Associated Press, reports that a federal class-action lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, has been settled, bringing to an end a system of illegally jailing people because they couldn't pay court fines. The lawsuit was filed by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit civil rights group Equal Justice Under Law and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law. Jackson municipal judges ordered each of the seven plaintiffs jailed because they were unable to pay fines and fees imposed in misdemeanor cases. All owed at least $1,200. People sent to jail under the previous system received credit toward their unpaid debts at a rate of $25 per day of incarceration at the Hinds County Jail or $58 per day if they participated in a work program at the Hinds County Penal Farm. As a result, some people spent several months in jail while working off their debts. Under the June 20 settlement, the city agreed to give indigent defenders the choice of paying their fines at the rate of $25 per month or performing community service and getting a credit toward their debt at the rate of $9 per hour. In addition, the city has agreed to prohibit the use of secured money bail and requiring that all misdemeanor defendants be released upon their written agreement to appear for court hearings and to abide by specified conditions of pre-trial release. As an alternative to money bond, the city's judges will have the option to place nonmonetary pre-trial conditions on people arrested for misdemeanor offenses. For example, a judge might order someone accused of shoplifting to stay away from the affected location until the case is resolved. The plaintiffs also will have their debts to the city forgiven and will get settlement payments totaling $128,400. "No human being should be kept in a cage because she cannot make a monetary payment," said Alec Karakatsanis, co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law. "The Constitution forbids it, and communities across the country are finally beginning to end the scourge of debtors' prisons and money bail." Jackson Mayor Tony Yarber, in a statement on June 20, said the city "is committed to fair treatment of all its citizens." "Please know that no crime will go unpunished. All misdemeanors will be strictly enforced, and fines indeed will be paid. . . . This settlement protects the indigent with an inability to pay their fines, which will be determined during court proceedings. The settlement also is reflective of changing policies across the nation. The City of Jackson remains committed to prosecuting all crime within its boundaries to the highest degree. It's a new day in the City of Jackson," the statement said. "The processes and procedures adopted by the Capital City pursuant to our agreement are a model for the rest of the state," said Cliff Johnson, director of the MacArthur Justice Center. "It is our hope that cities and counties throughout Mississippi will adopt these same practices rather than continuing to jail poor folks unjustly and forcing us to file lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in damages." Similar suits have been filed in Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri. All accuse court systems of ignoring U.S. Supreme Court decisions that say courts must determine whether people have the ability to pay fines before jailing them for nonpayment. Last year, Equal Justice Under Law and the MacArthur Justice Center negotiated a settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit against Moss Point, Mississippi, that brought an end to the use of money bail in misdemeanor cases prosecuted there. A pending federal lawsuit in New Orleans accused the city's criminal court judges of running what amounts to a debtors' prison by jailing poor people who can't afford to pay court fees. KBK SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Decertify "Chambliss" Class ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James D. Peterson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied KBK Services Inc.'s motion to decertify plaintiffs' FLSA collective action in the case captioned, PAMELA CHAMBLISS, et. al, Plaintiffs, v. CAREFIRST, INC, et. al., Defendants, Case No. RDB-15-2288 (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiffs Andrew Ricard and Tim Mackay accuse their former employer, KBK Services, of underpaying employees. Plaintiffs seek to represent a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19, and a class action under Wisconsin wage and hour laws, Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 109.03 and Wisconsin Administrative Code DWD Sec. 272.12. Plaintiffs have moved to certify their proposed state-law class of all "all KBK employees who, during the time period of April 18, 2013 and thereafter, traveled at least 90 miles from their home to work on a KBK jobsite, and was [sic] not paid for all of their travel time between their home and the KBK jobsite and/or did not have all of their travel time counted as hours worked in determining their eligibility for overtime pay." Defendant contends that the named plaintiffs and the proposed class are not similarly situated, precluding resolution of their claims on a class-wide basis. In his Opinion and Order dated June 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/5be2iD from Leagle.com, Judge Peterson held that plaintiffs meet all requirements for both class certification under Rule 23 and collective action certification under the FLSA. Andrew Ricard and Tim Mackay are represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. PREVIANT, GOLDBERG, UELMEN, GRATZ, MILLER & BRUEGGEMAN 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Tel: (888) 213-0123 KBK Services, Inc. is represented by Brittany L. Lopez Naleid, Esq. -- bnaleid@reinhartlaw.com -- John H. Zawadsky, Esq. -- jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com -- and Robert S. Driscoll, Esq. -- rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com -- REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. LANDRYS INC: "Saechao" Class Settlement Has Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northen District of California granted plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement agreement in the case captioned, MOUANG SAECHAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDRYS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and McCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. C 15-00815 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Mouang Saechao filed the action individually and on behalf of five classes of hourly non-exempt employees and former employees at Spenger's Fresh Fish Grotto in Berkeley, California, who allegedly suffered various injuries relating to meal breaks, rest breaks, split-shift premiums, and inaccurate wage statements. Throughout the case, including after the certification of the class, the parties engaged in extensive class-wide discovery, including several requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and requests for admissions. Defendant produced more than 65,000 pages of documents and tens of thousands of lines of data. The parties met and conferred regarding discovery on various occasions, resulting in amendments and supplementation of responses and one discovery dispute (later withdrawn). Both sides deposed numerous witnesses. Plaintiff also retained an economics expert who conducted a damages study and produced a report based on payroll records, timesheets, paystubs, and employee schedules. Following class certification, the parties negotiated extensively before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero including attending three settlement conferences that ultimately resulted in the instant classwide settlement agreement. Plaintiff moves for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contemplates an incentive payment of $500 to Saechao for her efforts, and class counsel intend to seek $150,000 in attorney's fees and $50,000 in costs. In his Order dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/iVdkLJ from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement agreement and approved the proposed form of notice which will administered by the settlement administrator, Simpluris, Inc. The proposed settlement is not contingent on approval of the anticipated motion for attorney's fees and costs or the incentive payment. The Court ordered Plaintiff must file a separate motion for attorney's fees and costs at the final approval stage. Mouang Saechao is represented by Katharine Chao, Esq. -- kathy@chaolegal.com -- CHAO LEGAL Plaintiff is also represented by: Cari Ann Cohorn, Esq. COHORN LAW 101 California St., Suite 2710 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415)993-9005 McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp. is represented by Aaron Nathan Colby, Esq. -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Tracy Thompson, Esq. -- tracythompson@dwt.com -- Nicholas Anthony Murray, Esq. -- nicolasmurray@dwt.com -- Janet Lynn Grumer, Esq. -- janetgrumer@dwt.com -- and Evelyn F. Wang, Esq. -- evelynwang@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP LANDSCAPE GROUP: "Wilch" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW WILCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE LANDSCAPE GROUP, INC., and FRANK C. SCHAFFER, SR., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01951-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all overtime hours worked at a rate of time and one-half the required regular rate -- inclusive of all compensation not excludable from the regular rate calculation under applicable law -- for all hours worked above 40 in a work week, and failing to pay Plaintiff and the Similarly Situated Individuals all overtime compensation owed on a timely basis. Landscape Group is a full service landscape company offering Lawn Maintenance programs with weed prevention and fertilizing. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Andrew Head, Esq. Jerilyn E. Gardner, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 1170 Howell Mill Rd, NW, Suite 305 Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 924 4151 Facsimile: (404) 796 7338 E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com jgardner@headlawfirm.com - and - Dawson Morton, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 104 Cambridge Ave Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 590 1295 Facsimile: (404) 377 7637 E-mail: dawson@dawsonmorton.com LG ELECTRONICS: Court Narrows Claims in Suit by LCD TV Buyers ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John Michael Vazquez of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendant LG Electronics USA's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned, WILLIAM EBERHART, Plaintiff, v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-1761 (D.N.J.). Plaintiff, William Eberhart, bought a 60 inch LG 60LB5200 television at a Walmart near his home in Toms River, New Jersey. The essence of Plaintiffs complaint is that LG deceives consumers as to the refresh rates for its televisions. Television consumers perceive motion on a television screen by observing a display of numerous still images in rapid succession. Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 9, 2015, seeking to represent a class of purchasers of LG LCD televisions from March 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs complaint contained the following counts: (1) violations of the New Jersey Consumer fraud Act (CFA), N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 56:8-2; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) common law fraud; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) breach of express warranty; and (6) unjust enrichment. LG filed a motion seeking to dismiss all six counts of the Complaint on May 21, 2015. On December 30, 2015, Judge Arleo granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Judge Arleo dismissed Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim with prejudice and the remaining five counts were dismissed without prejudice, providing Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on January 15, 2016, asserting causes of action under the CFA, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. In the motion, Defendant seeks for the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint in its entirety. LG argues for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In his Opinion dated May 24, 2016 available at https://is.gd/x8K9Es from Leagle.com, Judge Vazquez dismissed Plaintiff's CFA claim because Plaintiff does not provide a practical means to justify the ascertainable loss and negligent misrepresentation claim because LG had no duty to disclose facts to Plaintiff and denied as to LG's motion to dismiss as to the fraud claim rejecting LG's argument that the inclusion of these articles negates Plaintiffs reasonable reliance. William Eberhart is represented by Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. -- AWF@chimicles.com -- and Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. -- BenJohns@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP and Benjamin David Elga, Esq. -- belga@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP LG Electronics USA, Inc. is represented by John B. Kearney, Esq. -- kearneyj@ballardspahr.com -- and Christopher Neal Tomlin, Esq. -- tomlinc@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE: Court Favors Stay of Action Over Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, LANISA KELLY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00126-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.). Instead, the court stayed petitioner's "offset" class claim pending resolution of both the state court action and a previously filed Kennedy lawsuit. The court likewise reiterated that "when prudence calls for putting a redundant suit on hold, it must be stayed rather than dismissed unless there is no possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff." LANISA KELLY, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Grabhorn -- a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com -- GRABHORN LAW OFFICE PLLC & Michael D. Grabhorn -- mdg@grabhornlaw.com -- GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Bart A. Karwath -- bart.karwath@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, Jennifer Tudor Wright -- jennifer.tudor@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP & John M. Scannapieco -- jscannapieco@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, pro hac vice. A copy of Judge Pratt's June 2 decision is available at http://goo.gl/3szqDpfrom Leagle.com. LOUISIANA CLEANING: Court Trims Claims in Misclassification Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER FRENCH, v. LOUISIANA CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., Case 2:16-cv-00277-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.), Hon. Jay C. Zainey granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendants' motions to dismiss. The motions are denied as to French's FLSA wage claim pertaining to the two weeks of mandatory training and denied as to the state law statutory wage claim. The motions are granted in all other respects. French's motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action is denied. French's motion to strike is denied. Defendant The Scott Fetzer Company d/b/a The Kirby Company manufactures "Kirby" brand home cleaning systems and vacuums. Kirby does not sell its vacuum cleaning systems directly to consumers; rather, Kirby sells the systems to independent distributors, who in turn retain sales forces of Independent Dealers to sell systems to customers. Defendant Louisiana Cleaning Systems, Inc., which is located in Kenner, Louisiana and owned by defendant Charles Nugent, is one such distributor. Plaintiff Christopher French was an Independent Dealer/Kirby vacuum salesman for two weeks in November-December 2014. The crux of French's complaint is that he was wrongfully characterized as an independent contractor when he should have been considered an "employee." French seeks to represent an FLSA collective class of Kirby/LCS "employees" who were denied both wages and overtime pay under federal law. French also asserts a plethora of supplemental state law claims. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1GmujWZQ MDL 1566: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------- District Judge Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted motion to reconsider and motions for summary judgment, and denied motions to dismiss in the case captioned, In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation. ARANDELL CORP. et al., Plaintiffs, v. XCEL ENERGY INC. et al., Defendants. REORGANIZED FLI, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. et al., Defendants, MDL No. 1566, No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL., 2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL, 2:05-cv-01331-RCJ- PAL (D. Nev.). The consolidated cases arise out of the energy crisis of 2000- 2002. Plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) allege that Defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price of natural gas by reporting false information to price indices published by trade publications and engaging in wash sales. In 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred seven class action cases from various districts in California to this District under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 as Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside. In 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several summary judgment orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt state law anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin- and Missouri-based Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as to preemption under the Natural Gas Act and affirmed. The case was soon thereafter reassigned to the District of Nevada when Judge Pro retired. The Court granted three motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Briggs & Stratton Corp. and Carthage College (collectively, Movants) ask the Court to reconsider its dismissals of Defendants Reliant Energy, Inc. (New Reliant), CMS Energy Corp. (CMS), and Cantera Gas Co. (Cantera) arguing that Defendants failed to note in their previous motion that Movants were not yet parties to the case when Judge Pro granted the previous motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants in two of the actions have separately moved for summary judgment. In his Order dated May 24, 2016 available at https://is.gd/z9NaU2 from Leagle.com, Judge Jones found that the allegations concerning personal jurisdiction over Defendants in Wisconsin are sufficient. As to CES's motion for summary judgment the Court found that it is not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to support a verdict under section 133.03(1) and as to Oneok's summary judgment, the court found that notice to the class had been sufficient and that the settlements were fair and reasonable, and Oneok provides evidence that the claims administrator mailed both notices to Farmland's agent. Plaintiffs are represented by Amy Irene Washburn, Esq. -- awashburn@kmksc.com -- and Melinda Anne Bialzik, Esq. -- mbialzik@kmksc.com -- KOHNER, MANN & KAILAS, Susan G. Kupfer, Esq. -- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- and Sylvie K. Kern, Esq. -- skern@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, Michael John Miguel, Esq. -- mmiguel@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN PC, Nitin Reddy, Esq. -- nreddy@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP -- and Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK Aquila, Inc. is represented by Khai LeQuang, Esq. -- and William Molinski, Esq. -- wmolinski@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, Martin M. Loring, Esq. -- BLACKWELL, SANDERS, PEPER, MARTIN, Bradley C. Weber, Esq. -- Bweber@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP -- and Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK Cantera Natural Gas, Inc. and CMS Energy Resources are represented by Mark E. Haddad, Esq. -- mhaddad@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Esq. -- LOCKE LORD LLP -- and Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK MDL 1827: HannStar Must Pay $2MM for Plaintiffs' Legal Costs ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master File No. 07-MD-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827, Case No. 10-CV-4572 (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Susan Illston ordered judgment in favor of plaintiffs Best Buy Co., Inc.; Best Buy Purchasing LLC; Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc.; Best Buy Stores, L.P.; Bestbuy.com, L.L.C.; and Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., to recover attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $2,037,011.22 against the defendant HannStar Display Corporation. A copy of the Court's June 6, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/ooENQIfrom Leagle.com. HannStar Display Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau -- cnedeau@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP, Jerome Cary Roth -- Jerome.Roth@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Belinda S Lee -- belinda.lee@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, Daniel Murray Wall, Latham & Watkins LLP, Elizabeth Ann Gillen -- egillen@ftc.gov -- Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, Harrison J. Frahn, IV, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, James Glenn Kreissman -- jkreissman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP, Jason Matthew Bussey -- jbussey@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thatcher and Barlett LLP, Jerry Chen, Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP & Melissa Derr Schmidt, Simpson Thatcher and Bartlett LLP. MDL 2159: JPML Rejects Plaintiff's Move to Vacate Order ------------------------------------------------------- An order to transfer the case, LOZACRUZ v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, C.A. No. 8:16-00049 (C.D. Cal.), to MDL No. 2159 is sustained after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denies plaintiff Lozacruz's request to be excluded from the existing MDL, IN RE: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2159. District Judge Sarah S. Vance, who penned the Panel's decision, said Lozacruz and the MDL actions share allegations and, therefore, will share discovery concerning AutoZone's employment policies and practices in California. Judge Vance further ordered that the Lozacruz action will be transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. A copy of the JPML's June 2, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/nh9sxjfrom Leagle.com. MDL 2185: Court Narrows Issues in Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in its entirety in the case captioned, In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation. This document relates to: In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation (federal securities class action), Case No. 4:10-MD-2185 (S.D. Tex.). The Deepwater Horizon, an off-shore drilling rig leased by BP, exploded around 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 20th, 2010, resulting in the deaths of eleven workers and a catastrophic oil spill. In the days and weeks following the explosion, scientists at BP, several independent contractors, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) employed methodologies to estimate the rate at which oil was leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. Plaintiffs argue that BP publicly misrepresented the range of its internal flow-rate estimates on four different occasions, causing the market to conclude that the oil spill would be relatively small, when in fact BP's internal estimates suggested that the flow rate (and, by extension, the ultimate size of the spill) was far more severe than BP publicly represented. Plaintiffs bring their claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Defendants have moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs' case in its entirety. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law with respect to the elements of falsity and scienter. In his Memorandum and Order dated June 2, 2016 available at https://is.gd/vRK5mQ from Leagle.com, Judge Ellison denied summary judgment in favor of the Defendants holding that Plaintiffs have established that there is a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to: the falsity and scienter of Suttles's statements on April 24th, April 28th, and April 29th; loss causation for the decline in value of BP ADS on April 29th and May 3rd; and damages for the decline in value of BP ADS on April 29th and May 3rd; and granted to the extent that Plaintiffs' claims rely on the decline in value of BP ADS on May 10, June 1, June 9, or June 14 because Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence that his alleged misrepresentation proximately caused Plaintiffs' loss. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in its entirety because their evidence is insufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law in their favor. Robert Ludlow Is Represented by Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. -- mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- Matthew K. Edling, Esq. -- medling@cpmlegal.com -- Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. -- nfineman@cpmlegal.com -- and Victor S. Elias, Esq. -- velias@cpmlegal.com -- COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP, Richard Warren Mithoff, Jr., Esq. -- rmithoff@mithofflaw.com -- MITHOFF LAW FIRM, Hester H. Cheng, Esq. -- hcnguyen@garciagurney.com -- GARCIA & GURNEY, ALC Alan R. Higgs is represented by Ana M. Cabassa, Esq. -- acabassa@zsz.com -- Robert S. Schachter, Esq. -- rschachter@zsz.com -- and Sona R. Shah, Esq. -- sshah@zsz.com -- ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, Anthony Chu, Esq. -- anthonychu888@gmail.com -- and Don K. Ledgard -- DLedgard@capretz.com -- CAPRETZ & ASSOCIATES -- and Mary K. Blasy, Esq. -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Johnson Investment Counsel Inc. is represented by Dianne M. Nast, Esq. -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NAST LAW LLC, Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- NEBLETT BEARD ET AL -- and Wilbert B. Markovits, Esq. -- bmarkovits@msdlegal.com -- MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC BP PLC is represented by Robert Mike Brock, Esq. Kristopher S. Ritter, Esq. -- kristopher.ritter@kirkland.com -- and Scott W. Fowkes, Esq. -- scott.fowkes@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Thomas W. Taylor, Esq. -- ttaylor@andrewskurth.com -- ANDREWS AND KURTH, Daryl A. Libow, Esq. -- libowd@sullcrom.com --Diane Lee McGimsey, Esq. -- mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com -- Marc De Leeuw, Esq. Richard C Pepperman, II, Esq. -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, George Denegre, Jr., Esq. John C. Anjier, Esq. -- jcanjier@liskow.com -- and Russell Keith Jarrett, Esq. -- rkjarrett@liskow.com -- LISKOW LEWIS, Lois O. Rosenbaum, Esq. -- laura.rosenbaum@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES LLP, Morgan D. Hodgson, Esq. -- mhodgson@steptoe.com -- and Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr., Esq. -- pondrasik@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP -- and Frances Floriano Goins, Esq. -- fgoins@ulmer.com -- and Isaac J. Eddington, Esq. -- ieddington@ulmer.com -- ULMER & BERNE MDL 2591: Certification of 9 Corn Producer Classes Sought --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs seek class certification, or in the alternative, for certification of an issue class in the lawsuit In Re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation (MDL No: 2591), Case No. 2:14-md-02591-JWL- JPO (D. Kan.) Specifically, they ask the Court to certify these classes: (1) the Nationwide Corn Producer Class, asserting a claim under the Lanham Act; (2) the Arkansas State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims under the Lanham Act, for common law negligence, and for tortious interference; (3) the Illinois State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and for common law negligence; (4) the Iowa State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and for common law negligence; (5) the Kansas State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and for common law negligence; (6) the Missouri State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims under the Lanham Act, for common law negligence, and for tortious interference; (7) the Nebraska State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, and for common law negligence; (8) the Ohio State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and for common law negligence; and (9) the South Dakota State Corn Producers Class, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and for common law negligence. The Plaintiffs further seek to appoint as Class Counsel, Don M. Downing, Patrick J. Stueve, Scott Powell, and William Chaney. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ay8JzdsT The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714 7100 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com - and - Don M. Downing, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5620 E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com - and - William B. Chaney GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C. 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 320 6031 E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com - and - Scott Powell, Esq. HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON 2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328 5330 E-mail: scott@hwnn.com MDL 2617: Court Rules on Dismissal Bids --------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted, in part, the Anthem Defendants' motion to dismiss, granted in part the Non-Anthem Defendants' motion to dismiss, and denied the Non-Anthem Defendants' motion for clarification in the case captioned, IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal.). In February 2015, Anthem publicly announced that "cyberattackers had breached the Anthem Database, and had accessed the PII of individuals in the Anthem Database." Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Anthem, Inc., 27 Anthem affiliates, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and 14 non-Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Companies. The Court refers to Anthem, Inc. and the Anthem affiliates as the "Anthem Defendants," and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the non-Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Companies as the "Non-Anthem Defendants." Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not sufficiently heed these warnings, which allowed cyberattackers to extract massive amounts of data from Anthem's database between December 2014 and January 2015. In general, these lawsuits bring putative class action claims alleging (1) failure to adequately protect Anthem's data systems, (2) failure to disclose to customers that Anthem did not have adequate security practices, and (3) failure to timely notify customers of the data breach. The Anthem Defendants filed one consolidated motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint (SAC). The Non-Anthem Defendants also filed one consolidated motion to dismiss the SAC. The Non-Anthem Defendants have also filed a motion for clarification of the Court's First Motion to Dismiss Order. In her Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xRj3D1 from Leagle.com, Judge Hogue granted with prejudice: -- the Anthem Defendants' motion to dismiss the California breach of contract claim as to Plaintiffs Daniel Randrup, Kelly Tharp, and Daniel Tharp, -- the Non-Anthem Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' request for Benefit of the Bargain Losses under the New Jersey breach of contract claim, -- Defendants' motions to dismiss the California Unfair Competition Law claim as to the unlawful prong as that prong relates to the California Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, -- Defendants' motions to dismiss the California Unfair Competition Law claim as to the fraud prong as that prong relates to a misrepresentation theory of liability, -- Defendants' motions to dismiss the New York General Business Law Sec. 349 as to Plaintiff Marne Onderdonk, and -- the Anthem Defendants' motion to dismiss the Georgia Information and Privacy Protect Act claim. The Court granted with no leave to amend Defendants' motions to dismiss the New York unjust enrichment claim as to Plaintiff Marne Onderdonk. Loralee Giotta and Laura Fowles are represented by Eve Hedy Cervantez, Esq. -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- ALTSHULER BERZON LLP, Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. -- jkravec@fdpklaw.com -- Thomas Payne, Esq. -- wpayne@fdpklaw.com -- and Wyatt A. Lison, Esq. -- wlison@fdpklaw.com -- FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Esq. -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP -- and Stephen Francis Yunker, Esq. -- YUNKER & SCHNEIDER, WILLIAM Danny Juliano is represented by Donald W. Stewart, Esq. -- donaldstewart5354@yahoo.com -- dstewart@altshulerberson.com -- and Eve Hedy Cervantez, Esq. -- ecervantez@alrshulerberzon.com -- ALTSHULER BERZON LLP, Greg William Foster, Esq. -- and -- T. Dylan Reeves, Esq. -- STEWART & STEWART PC, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Esq. -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Anthem, Inc. is represented by Craig Alan Hoover, Esq. -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- Michael McDonald Maddigan, Esq. - - michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- Allison Marie Holt, Esq. -- allison.holt@hoganlovells.com -- and Craig H. Smith, Esq. -- craig.smith@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Alexandria J. Reyes, Esq. -- and Chad R. Fuller, Esq. -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Cassandra Lauren Crawford, Esq. -- cassie.crawford@nelsonmullins.com -- Lucile Hartley Cohen, Esq. -- lucie.cohen@nelsonmullins.com -- Mark A. Stafford, Esq. -- mark.stafford@nelsonmullins.com -- and John Derrick Martin, Esq. -- john.martin@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH LLP, Cavender C Kimble, Esq. -- ckimble@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Christopher W. Brooker, Esq. -- cbrooker@wyattfirm.com -- and Gregory Haynes, Esq. -- ghaynes@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS LLP, Geraldine G. Sanchez, Esq. -- gsanchez@rhrsb.com -- ROACH HEWITT RUPRECHT SANCHEZ & BISCHOFF, P.C., Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Esq. -- gvwhitaker@vorys.com -- VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE -- and Matthew H. Geelan, Esq. -- Mgeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- DONAHUE, DURHAM & NOONAN, P.C. MDL 2710: JPML Finds Centralization of 19 Cases Unnecessary ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: COMCAST CORP. EMPLOYEE WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2710, the Hon. Sarah S. Vance, Panel Chair of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, is not convinced with the motion by plaintiffs in 19 lawsuits seeking centralization of their actions in the Northern District of California. The litigation consists of 19 actions that pose the question of whether California Comcast technicians were properly compensated for meal and rest breaks while on call. Comcast defendants support centralization in the Northern District of California. The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary to serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. A copy of the JPML's June 2, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/R81miufrom Leagle.com. MDL 2715: JPML Sees No Need to Centralize Litigation ---------------------------------------------------- A four-judge member of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a motion by plaintiffs Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. for centralization of actions in the case, IN RE: FRESH DAIRY PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III), MDL No. 2715. The order denying the transfer of four actions in the Southern District of Illinois was based largely on the grounds that (1) there were, as a practical matter, only two actions in two districts, given that the California actions had been consolidated; (2) the California actions were brought on behalf of indirect purchasers, whereas the action outside of California was a direct purchaser action; and (3) informal coordination and cooperation appeared practicable, especially in light of the small number of actions. A copy of the JPML order dated June 2, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/lQdeGPfrom Leagle.com. Winn-Dixie is a plaintiff in the case, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., ET AL. v. SOUTHEAST MILK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-01143 (M.D. Fla.). The cases pending in the Southern District of Illinois are: -- FIRST IMPRESSIONS SALON, INC. v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:13-00454 -- BELLE FOODS TRUST, ET AL. v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-01014 -- PIGGLY WIGGLY MIDWEST, LLC, ET AL. v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-00750 MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: "Pedro" Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California sent the case captioned, NINA PEDRO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-05253-MMC (N.D. Cal.), to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs Nina Pedro and Rosalind Lewis are residents of California and Washington, respectively, who seek to represent a class comprised of consumers in the United States who purchased, "within two years before the date this suit was filed, any of the kombucha products manufactured by defendants." Defendant Millennium Products, Inc. manufactures "two separate lines of kombucha," the "Enlightened" line, marketed "as containing less than 0.5% alcohol," and the "Classic" line, marketed "as containing in excess of 0.5% alcohol." Defendant GT Dave is the founder and chief executive officer of Millennium Products, Inc. Defendant Whole Foods sells Millennium Products, Inc.'s kombucha to consumers. The Fourth Amended Complaint asserts, as against Millennium products, Inc. and Whole Foods, these four causes of action: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), (3) violation of the California False Advertising Law, and (4) violation of the New York Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. In the motion, Millennium argues that the Court should stay or transfer the action pursuant to the "first-to-file rule." Alternatively, Millennium argues that the Court should grant a stay pursuant to its "inherent power to manage its own docket." In her Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/biTQzc from Leagle.com, Judge Chesney denied to the extent Millennium seeks a stay of the action and granted to the extent Millennium seeks a transfer of the action. Nina Pedro and Roseline Lewis are represented by Joshua Haakon Watson, Esq. -- jwatson@justice4you.com -- and Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. -- ccacorp@aol.com -- CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Millennium Products, Inc. is represented by Scott Michael Voelz, Esq. -- svoelz@omm.com -- and Daniel James Faria, Esq. -- dfaria@omm.com -- OMELVENY MYERS LLP Whole Foods Market California, Inc. is represented by James Mitchell Lee, Esq. -- james.lee@ltlattorneys.com -- David Alexander Crane, Esq. -- david.crane@ltlattorneys.com -- and Joedat Hani Tuffaha, Esq. -- joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL ATTORNEYS LLP MICHIGAN: Huron Valley Male Corrections Officers File Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that it's not just female corrections officers who are being discriminated against at Michigan's only women's prison, according to those pressing a class action on behalf of male corrections officers at Women's Huron Valley prison. On June 13, the U.S. Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging the department discriminates against female corrections officers at the prison near Ypsilanti by designating too many positions as "women only." As a result, officials "required female employees at Huron Valley to work excessive overtime hours at a cost to their health," the suit alleges. There's a flip side to that claim, said Tom Nowacki, a corrections officer at Women's Huron Valley since 2004 and the lead plaintiff in a class action by about 90 current and former male corrections officers at the facility: men have been unfairly excluded from certain jobs and denied overtime opportunities. "The women are forced to work mandatory overtime while the men are sent home, simply because of our gender," Mr. Nowacki told the Free Press on June 17. James Fett, a Pinckney attorney representing Mr. Nowacki and the other plaintiffs, said the Justice Department's action strengthens his case, which was filed in Washtenaw County Circuit Court in 2011 and also is being litigated in the Michigan Court of Claims and the Michigan Court of Appeals. "The state is now looking down a double-barreled shotgun, instead of just a single-barreled shotgun," Mr. Fett said on June 17. "Both the DOJ and my legal team are singing from the same song book." Andrea Bitely, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office, which is representing the Corrections Department in the case, declined to comment. And Chris Gautz, a spokesman for the Corrections Department, declined to comment. The department banned male corrections officers from working most jobs at Women's Huron Valley in response to multimillion-dollar 2008 jury awards related to sexual abuse of female inmates by male corrections officers at other women's prisons in Michigan, which are no longer open. Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility houses about 2,200 inmates. The prison also has been in the news due to complaints from inmates about overcrowding. "Male correctional staff do not want to work in the residential units," but they've been unfairly excluded from jobs in the gym, food services, schools, and gate control, among others, Mr. Nowacki said. Though Mr. Nowacki and the other lawsuit members played no part in the abuses that led to the successful lawsuits by female inmates, "the administration has been treating us like we're a bunch of convicted sex offenders," Mr. Nowacki said. In March, the department moved to soften its "women's only" policy, opening up to male corrections officers certain jobs in food services, the gym, the infirmary, the property room, schools and yard control, according to a letter sent to the Michigan Civil Service Commission. But Mr. Fett said "there are far more changes that need to be made," and the March changes were only an unsuccessful "attempt to appease the DOJ, so they wouldn't file a suit." The suit has already survived appeals of its certification as a class action, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals and which the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear. The department transferred the non-monetary claims, such as requests for injunctions, to the Michigan Court of Claims. Mr. Fett said the plaintiffs have offered to withdraw those non- monetary claims so they can have a circuit court trial related to damages. But the department, through the Attorney General's Office, is fighting the plaintiffs' attempt to abandon those claims, in the Court of Appeals, saying the action could legally prejudice the department. In an April court filing, Mr. Fett accused the state of "repeated delay tactics." MICROSOFT INC: Pro-Sys Permitted to Subpoena Former Apple Exec -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted permission to issue a subpoena to depose Jean-Louis Gassee in connection with an antitrust proceeding between Pro and Microsoft in the case captioned, IN RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PRO-SYS CONSULTANTS AND NEIL GODFREY, Case No. 16-MC-80118-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Pro-Sys Consultants and Neil Godfrey are the plaintiffs in a certified class action now pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada. Pro alleges that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive conduct globally with respect to the markets for operating systems, middleware, and applications software from 1988 to the present. Microsoft denies the allegations. Pro filed an ex parte application to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1782 seeking to subpoena Gassee, former executive at Apple Computer, and the founder of Be, Inc. and creator of the BeOS operating system. Pro argues that Mr. Gassee possesses first- hand knowledge of the effect of Microsoft's restrictive Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) licensing practices on Be, BeOS, and the operating systems software market more generally. Pro filed the pending application on May 27, 2016. It asks the Court to appoint Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., as Commissioner and authorize him with the power to issue a subpoena for deposition testimony on Mr. Gassee. In her Order dated June 3, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XyjuK4 from Leagle.com, Judge Corley determined that Pro's application satisfies the minimum requirements of Section 1782 and appointed Gralewski, Jr., as Commissioner and authorized him to serve the proposed deposition subpoena on Mr. Gassee. In re Ex Parte Application of Pro-Sys Consultants & Neil Godfrey is represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. -- bgralewski@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP NANOSPHERE INC: "Beveridge" Suit Enjoins Merger with Luminex ------------------------------------------------------------ JO-ANNE BEVERIDGE, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NANOSPHERE, INC., MICHAEL K. MCGARRITY, LORIN J. RANDALL, GENE CARTWRIGHT, ERIK HOLMLIN, MICHAEL J. WARD, KRISTOPHER A. WOOD, LUMINEX CORPORATION, and COMMODORE ACQUISITION, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH- 07896 (Ill. Cir. Ct, June 13, 2016), seeks to enjoin the merger between Nanosphere and Luminex Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Commodore Acquisition, Inc. On May 15, 2016, the Board caused Nanosphere to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Luminex. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of Nanosphere will receive $1.35 per share in cash. The complaint says the proposed transaction is the product of a flawed process and deprives Nanosphere's public stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects. Furthermore, in approving the Merger Agreement, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and the Class. Moreover, as alleged herein, Nanosphere and Luminex aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. Nanosphere provides targeted molecular diagnostic tests that can lead to earlier disease detection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq. SALAS WANG LLC 73 West Monroe, Suite 219 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 803 4963 E-mail: jsalas@salaswang.com - 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 NAT'L HOCKEY: Two Ex-Sabres Players Join Concussion Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Vogl, writing for The Buffalo News, reports that ex-Sabres Rob Ray and Mike Hartman are among the 104 former players who have filed a lawsuit against the NHL claiming the league was negligent in its care and fraudulently concealed the long-term risks of head injuries. Mr. Hartman, according to the lawsuit, suffers from a variety of post-concussion symptoms, including headaches, memory loss and sleep problems. Mr. Stevenson is on permanent disability due to anxiety, depression, speech problems, a lack of concentration and comprehension, difficulty sleeping and memory loss. The retired players are seeking medical monitoring and compensatory damages from the NHL. "The problem is their cognitive health is deteriorating at a rapid rate, much more than the average citizen," Charles "Bucky" Zimmerman, founding partner of a law firm representing the players, said by phone. "It's because they played the sport. It's because they took a lot of hits and a lot of banging, and now they're paying the price." The plaintiffs include longtime NHLers like Bernie Nicholls, who scored 475 goals in 1,127 games, and guys like Mr. Stevenson, who totaled two assists in 27 appearances. There are 16 former Sabres. Much like the overall group, some are well-known while others appeared in Buffalo just long enough to get toll money for their next stop. Along with Mr. Hartman, the ex-Sabres are Shawn Anderson, Doug Barrie, Mal Davis, Richie Dunn, Jim Hofford, Edward "Dean" Kennedy, Reed Larson, Grant Ledyard, Gary McAdam, Craig Muni, Jeff Parker, Steve Patrick, Mike Robitaille, Morris Titanic and the late Steve Montador, who is being represented by his father, Paul. According to the lawsuit, many of them have had problems as a result of concussions and subconcussive hits: -- Anderson, the No. 5 overall pick by Buffalo in the 1986 NHL Draft, was driven to substance abuse. He entered a substance abuse program after his last game in 1995 and has been sober for 20 years. -- Barrie, a member of the original 1970-71 Sabres, suffers from mood swings, depression, alcohol abuse, headaches, anxiety and temper-control issues. -- Davis, who played in Buffalo and Rochester from 1981 to 1986, suffers anxiety attacks, dizziness, disorientation, memory loss, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), mood swings, problems with impulse control, concentration difficulties, sleep disorder and cognitive deficits. -- Hofford, who played 17 games for the Sabres in the mid- 1980s, has depression, anxiety, irritability and difficulty concentrating. He says the conditions negatively affected his personal relationships. -- Ledyard, an 18-year veteran who spent parts of five seasons in Buffalo, has had headaches, mood swings, sensitivity to light and depression while losing his temper for little or no reason. -- Muni, who spent three of his 16 seasons with the Sabres, suffers from depression, short temper and mood swings. -- Titanic, who played his 19 NHL games with Buffalo in the mid-1970s, has memory loss, tinnitus, post-traumatic headaches and cognitive deficit. How many other former Sabres are hurting? "More than you can imagine," said Mr. Ray, the hockey pugilist turned broadcaster who serves as president of the Buffalo Sabres Alumni Association. "The help isn't there for the guys when they're done. Yeah, there's concussions, but I think in the big picture a lot of guys are to the point where things need to be fixed, all because of the game, and there's nobody there to help them. "A lot of the guys are getting to that age now where things that they had fixed playing -- whether it was a knee, shoulder, teeth, whatever -- it's fixed at that time. But 30, 40, 50 years down the road when it starts falling apart again or things fall apart due to what you did, you're on your own dime. That's the part that's hard, and that's the part that most guys look at." The first small group of retired players filed suit against the NHL in November 2013. The timing created backlash. The NFL had settled its lawsuit with former players just three months earlier, and the payout was $765 million. The immediate perception was hockey players were merely looking to cash in. Mr. Ledyard heard those rumblings. He followed the proceedings through news stories and conversations with players and lawyers. The longtime defenseman learned the primary purpose was to get help for players in need, so he joined in November 2015. "I hesitated to join the lawsuit for a long time because people were calling it a money grab," Ledyard said. "No one ever said anything about money to me. It was never mentioned that way. For a couple years, I listened to information that was coming out from both sides, and I just felt like it was being straightened out more. People were starting to understand through not only some of the experiences of players in hockey but also from football. "I'm just hoping this is a situation where some of the older guys, much older than myself, can get taken care of and get a little bit of peace in their old age." Mr. Ledyard was an NHL Players' Association union representative in Buffalo and other cities. He says his longtime desire to work for his hockey brothers prompted him to join. Mr. Nicholls, slated to serve as a class representative, has said the same thing. But of the thousands and thousands of retired players, why have only 104 joined the lawsuit? There are three main reasons: -- The NHL hires its own. The staff directories for the 30 teams are filled with former players. Once guys hang up their skates, they slide into scouting, coaching or broadcasting jobs. "It's hard to go and sue your team," Mr. Ray said. "A lot of guys don't join because they're still involved in the game." -- Hockey comes with acknowledged risks. Since its inception, the NHL has been a league where toughness is valued as much as skill. Players signed up knowing that fights, hits and physical play were part of the job. Mr. Ray's minor- league coaches in Rochester told him the best path to Buffalo was to fight and fight some more. So he did, throwing and absorbing more punches than nearly everyone in NHL history. -- Lawyers approached him about joining the lawsuit, but he declined. "Sometimes you take the notion that you kind of know what you're getting into," Ray said. "I know you're young and dumb and you do a lot of things, and you don't think about things sometimes. I know a lot of guys are affected by it, but I think if you would have asked any of them at that time that there's this chance" of long-term injury, "they'd all say, 'Screw it, let's roll the dice.' " -- The lawsuit doesn't need any more players. The next major step in the case, being heard in U.S. District Court in Minnesota, is a motion for class certification in September. If Judge Susan Richard Nelson rules the case should become a class-action lawsuit, then the plaintiffs will represent all retired players, not just the ones who signed up. "The definition includes everyone who played," Mr. Zimmerman said from his law office in Minneapolis. "It really isn't necessary that other people file lawsuits because the lawsuit is proceeding on behalf of the class representatives. There's no vote. There's no critical mass that's necessary. The case is proceeding, and most of the players know about it." Mr. Zimmerman, who also represented NFL players in their lawsuit, said the potential retired player pool is 4,500 to 5,000. By comparison, the NFL pool included more than 20,000 former players. "A lot of people are on the sidelines just waiting to see what happens and hoping that they can participate as class members," Mr. Zimmerman said. "The heroes of this case are the players that are in this and trying to help their brethren. For the most part, these are players that played the game hard, left a lot of the best times of their lives on the ice, and now toward the end or middle of their life, they're trying to help the guys that played with them. "It's that group of people that we're vigorously trying to find a remedy for because many of them -- many, many of them, more than you can imagine -- have been significantly impaired and their lives are really on a very downward trajectory. We're trying to do something to help them and their families navigate through these difficult times." NATIONAL MILK: Case Management Conference Continued to Aug. 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION et al., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-04766-JSW (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the parties' stipulated request to vacate the case management conference set for June 17, 2016. However, the Court continues the case management conference to August 26, 2016 at 11:000 a.m. A joint case management statement is due August 19, 2016. A copy of the Court's June 13 order is available at https://is.gd/vKbjok from Leagle.com. In an earlier ruling, dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/gWLVB4 from Leagle.com, Judge White ordered that the status conference set for at 11:00 a.m. June 3, 2016, be continued to June 17, 2016, with a further joint status conference report due by June 10, 2016. The parties in the case participated in mediation on January 16, 2015, before the Hon. Layn R. Phillips, but were unable to resolve the case at that time. The parties recently had another mediation session before the Hon. Layn R. Phillips on May 16, 2016. The mediation did not result in an agreement. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary adjudication, and Defendants filed a motion for decertification, a Daubert motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert, and a motion for summary judgment. Danell Tomasella, et al. are represented by Sara Payne, Esq. -- spayne@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- and -- Jason S. Kilene, Esq. -- jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, Steven N. Berk, Esq. -- steven@berklawdc.com -- BERK LAW PLLC, Shpetim Ademi, Esq. -- sademi@ademilaw.com -- ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- and Mark Reinhardt, Esq. -- m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com -- REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD, Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP National Milk Producers Federation is represented by Dylan Ruga, Esq. -- dylan@stalwartlaw.com -- John J. Kavanagh, III, Esq. - john@steptoe.com -- and Kenneth P. Ewing, Esq. - kenneth@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. is represented by Jesse William Markham, Esq. -- JMarkham@bakerandmiller.com -- Amber L. McDonald, Esq. -- AMcDonald@bakerandmiller.com -- Ishai Zvi Mooreville, Esq. -- IMooreville@bakerandmiller.com -- W. Todd Miller, Esq. -- TMiller@bakerandmiller.com -- BAKER & MILLER PLLC, Carl R. Metz, Esq. -- and Steven R. Kuney, Esq. -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP NAVISTAR INT'L: October 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CONSTRUCTION WORKERS PENSION TRUST FUND - LAKE COUNTY AND VICINITY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, DANIEL C. USTIAN, ANDREW J. CEDEROTH, and JACK ALLEN, Defendants. Civ. No. 1:13-cv-2111 CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED COMMON STOCK OF NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ("NAVISTAR" OR THE "COMPANY") (TICKER SYMBOL: NAV) BETWEEN March 10, 2010 and August 1, 2012, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed Settlement has been reached in this Action. A hearing will be held with respect to the Settlement on October 25, 2016, at 10:30 A.M. before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Courtroom 1403, Chicago, IL 60604. The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement of the securities class action claims asserted in this Action, pursuant to which Navistar, on behalf of all Defendants, will cause to be deposited into a Settlement Fund the sum of nine million one hundred thousand dollars ($9,100,000.00) in exchange for the dismissal of the Action with prejudice and a release of claims against the Defendants and other Released Parties, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Navistar common stock (ticker symbol: NAV) during the Class Period, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund if you submit a Proof of Claim Form no later than September 16, 2016, and if the information and documentation you provide in that Proof of Claim Form establishes that you are entitled to a recovery. This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the Action and the Settlement. A detailed notice (the "Notice") describing the Action, the proposed Settlement, and the rights of Class Members to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Class, and/or to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential Class Members. You may obtain a copy of that Notice, a Proof of Claim Form, or other information at www.NavistarSecuritiesSettlement.com or by writing to the following address or calling the following telephone number. Navistar Securities Settlement P.O. Box 4540 Portland, OR 97208-4540 (844) 778-5949 If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. The objection must be filed and served so that it is received no later than October 7, 2016. You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class by submitting a written request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. The request for exclusion must be received no later than October 7, 2016. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the Settlement and the Court's Judgment, including the releases provided for in the Settlement and Judgment, unless you submit a request to be excluded. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed Notice referenced above and a Proof of Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff: COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Carol V. Gilden, Esq. 190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 357-0370 Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com Dated: June 9, 2016 By Order of the Court, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois NEGVEST LIMITED: Faces "Torecchio" Suit Under FLSA, NJ Wage Law --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW TORECCHIO, Plaintiff, v. NEGVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, dba FIVE GUYS, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-03517 (D.N.J., June 17, 2016), seeks recovery against Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or manages a restaurant, which served customers and purchased products throughout New Jersey and throughout the tri state area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (201) 687-9977 Fax: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com OLD DOMINION: "Blanco" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under Wage Order ------------------------------------------------------------ ISSAC BLANCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., and DOES l-100, the Defendants, Case No. RG16819118 (Cal. Super. Ct, June 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Defendant allegedly failed to comply with Wage Order by failing to maintain time records and showing hourly piece rate compensation, and did not compensate its drivers and/or industrial truck workers on a piece rate basis that is determined based upon the particular route and/or load. Old Dominion is a trucking company in California engaged in transportation services for new and used vehicles from manufacturing plants, ports, railhead, and/or auctions, to retail dealerships. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 ORLEANS PARISH: Court Granted Class Certification in "Yarls" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. James J. Brady entered an order in the class action lawsuit styled Darwin Yarls, Jr., Leroy Shaw, Jr. and Douglas R. Brown on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Derwyn Bunton, in his official capacity as Chief District Defender for Orleans Parish, Louisiana; James T. Dixon, Jr., in his official capacity as Louisiana State Public Defender, the Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00031-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.), granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Class is defined as Orleans Parish arrestees with a right to appointed counsel who have been or will be denied counsel indefinitely, or for a critical stage of their representation, due to their placement on a waiting list for representation by the Orleans Public Defender. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BvJo2zvo The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Buskey, Esq. Ezekiel Edwards, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Criminal Law Reform Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-284 7364 E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org eedwards@aclu.org - and - Candice C. Sirmon, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF LOUISIANA P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, La 70156 Telephone: (504) 522 0628 Facsimile: (888) 534 2995 E-mail: csirmon@laaclu.org - and - William P. Quigley, Esq. COLLEGE OF LAW Loyola University New Orleans 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Court Allows PAGA Claimants to File Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In re: PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, et al., Debtors, Case No. 16-10882 (LSS)(Jointly Administered)(Bankr. D. Del.), Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted in part and denied, in part, the motion of the class and California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claimants for leave to file class proof of claim. By the motion, Charles Pfeiffer and Tamaree Beeney sought permission to file proofs of claim in a representative capacity. First, Judge Silverstein concluded that there is no need to approve any claims brought under the PAGA. Second, the Judge certified the following: Class: All hourly, non-exempt employees of PacSun working in retail locations in the State of California from March 18, 2007 through the 181st day prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition concerning Ms. Beeney's claims for: (a) failing to authorize and permit employees to take duty-free breaks every four hours or major fraction thereof and to compensate employees therefor; and (b) requiring employees to undergo security checks and perform closing duties off-the-clock without compensation. A full-text copy of Judge Silverstein's June 22, 2016 order is available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb16-10882-487.pdf. About Pacific Sunwear of California Founded in 1982 in Newport Beach, California, as a surf shop, Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., operates in the teen and young adult retail sector, selling men's and womens apparel, accessories, and footwear. The Company went public in 1993 (NASDAQ: PSUN), and peaked with 965 stores in 2006. At present, the Company has approximately 593 retail locations nationwide under the names "Pacific Sunwear" and "PacSun," which stores are principally in mall locations. The Company has 2,000 full-time workers. Through its ecommerce business, the Company operates an e-commerce site at http://www.pacsun.com/ On April 7, 2016, Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., and two affiliated debtors each filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The cases are jointly administered under Case No. 16-10882 and are pending before the Honorable Laurie Selber Silverstein. The Debtors sought Chapter 11 protection with a Chapter 11 plan that would convert debt into equity. The Debtors tapped Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, and Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP as attorneys; FTI Consulting, Inc., as financial advisor; Guggenheim Securities, LLC, as investment banker; and Prime Clerk LLC as claims and noticing agent. PARKINSON'S SPECIALTY CARE: Settlement in "Ketty" Has Final Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Michael J. Davis of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned, JOISY MBULI EPSE KETTY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. PARKINSON'S SPECIALTY CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-04849 (MJD/JSM) (D. Minn.). Plaintiff filed the action against Defendant alleging (1) failure to pay premium pay of at least one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court conditionally certified a class of "All individuals who worked for Defendant as Certified Nursing Assistants and who worked a total of more than 40 hours in two or more of Defendant's locations in one or more workweeks at any of its locations between November 25, 2012 and November 24, 2014. " Settlement Class Members who opted into the FLSA collection action on or before April 18, 2016, are awarded with a total of $37,541.79. A copy of the Court's Order dated May 27, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/wZDC0w from Leagle.com. Joisy Mbuli Epse Ketty is represented by Cassie C. Navarro, Esq. Joni M. Thome, Esq. -- jthome@baillonthome.com -- and Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP Parkinson's Specialty Care, LLC is represented by William J. Egan, Esq. -- wjeganiii@gmail.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP. PEAK SECURITY: Court Denies Motion for Protective Order ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the motion for a protective order and denied the request to invalidate the opt-out requests in the case captioned, PAUL CHIME, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEAK SECURITY PLUS, INC. and EMMANUEL OSULA, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 13 Civ. 470 (AMD) (PK)(E.D.N.Y.). In November of 2015, following the Court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and granting conditional certification of the collective action and class certification of the NYLL claims, the letter notice of the litigation was mailed to more than five hundred potential class members. Of that number, 55 people submitted class exclusion requests, and 26 people opted-in to the FLSA collective action. The opt-in and opt-out notices were electronically filed with the court between December of 2015 and February of 2016. In January of 2016, the plaintiff wrote to Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo, again seeking a protective order under Rule 23(d) to prohibit the defendants and their agents from contacting the class and collective action members about the litigation, and requesting an order invalidating the exclusion requests. Judge Kuo denied the plaintiff's motion because she found that the only evidence of coercion was the large number of uniform exclusion requests mailed at the same time. On June 1, 2016, the plaintiff moved, pursuant to Rule 23(d), for a protective order prohibiting the individual defendant, Emmanuel Osula, and his agents from directly or indirectly contacting any class or collective action member, and sought an order invalidating 55 exclusion requests. In her Memorandum and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/rhn3Yx from Leagle.com, Judge Donnelly held that the plaintiff did not introduce sufficient evidence from which I could infer that the defendants or their agents interfered with the class members. Moreover, no individual has been identified as the caller, making it impossible to fashion an order. Paul Chime is represented by Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. -- danalgottlieb@aol.com -- GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES and Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. -- dl@bronsonlipsky.com -- BRONSON LIPSKY LLP Peak Security Plus, Inc. and Emmanuel Osula are represented by: Raymond Nardo, Esq. RAYMOND NARDO, ATTORNEY AT LAW 129 3rd St Mineola, NY 11501 Tel: (516)248-2121 PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Smokers Lose Appeal in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court on June 20 rejected an appeal from Illinois smokers who sought reinstatement of a $10.1 billion class-action judgment in a long-running lawsuit against Philip Morris. The justices did not comment in leaving in place an Illinois Supreme Court ruling in favor of the cigarette maker. The smokers objected to the participation of state Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who they said benefited from tobacco money in his retention election. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Illinois smokers, was one of the nation's first to accuse a tobacco company of consumer fraud. Known as Price v. Phillip Morris, the lawsuit claimed that Philip Morris deceptively marketed "light" and "low- tar" Marlboro cigarettes as a healthier alternative. The federal government now bars cigarette makers from labeling their products with such terms. "The action by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ends this case once and for all," Murray Garnick, an attorney and spokesman for Philip Morris' parent company, Altria Group Inc., said in a statement. "Losing any case after 17 years of intense litigation is obviously disappointing," Stephen Tillery, a St. Louis-based lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "But all of us who represented the plaintiffs in 'Price' feel that the case was socially significant and brought into public view facts that needed to be revealed." The Illinois Supreme Court first overturned the 2003 judgment in 2005. The plaintiffs eventually revived their lawsuit, and in 2014, a state appeals court reinstated the original verdict. But the state Supreme Court overturned that ruling last November in a 4-2 vote. The case led to aggressive efforts by the plaintiffs' attorneys to oust Justice Karmeier, whom they accused of being biased in ruling to overturn the judgment against Philip Morris and another $1.2 billion judgment against State Farm Insurance due to donations his 2004 campaign received from big business. Justice Karmeier, who declined to step aside and has denied receiving direct contributions from Philip Morris, won a November 2014 retention election. Plaintiffs' attorneys and law firms spent more than $1 million fighting Justice Karmeier's re-election through a political action committee. PJS OF PARMA: Court Denies Class Certification in "Carter" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, Carol Carter, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PJS of Parma, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15 CV 1545 (N.D. Ohio). Defendants PJS of Parma, Inc. and Lorraine Stancato (defendants) own and operate Stancato's Italian Restaurant, which maintains a dining room and also engages in off-site catering. Defendants employ dining room servers to work the lunch and dinner shifts in the dining room and banquet servers to work banquets and off-site catering events. Plaintiffs who worked as banquet servers for the defendants dispute that banquet servers received all of the additional tips left by the customer and allege that defendants kept a portion of the tips for themselves. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants' policy was that newly hired banquet servers were not allowed to receive additional tips for the first five banquet events that they worked. Plaintiffs move to certify a class of "all Banquet Servers who worked for Defendants for any period of time since August 5, 2011" on their unjust enrichment claim. Plaintiffs allege that members of the class were the intended recipients of the additional tips and gratuities and that defendants were unjustly enriched when they retained the tips. Defendants oppose plaintiffs' motion, arguing that plaintiffs' class definition is inadequate. In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XI1Cw0 from Leagle.com, Judge Gaughan concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet the requisite of class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b). Carol Carter, et al. are represented by: Alix Noureddine, Esq. Stephan I. Voudris, Esq. VOUDRIS LAW, LLC Winbury Professional Center 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Tel: (440) 543-0670 PJS of Parma, Inc. and Lorraine Stancato are represented by Brian E. Ambrosia, Esq. -- bambrosia@taftlaw.com -- and William J. Stavole, Esq. -- wstavole@taftlaw.com -- TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER POLSKIE LINIE: Must Defend Suit Over Delayed Flights ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part Lotnicze LOT S.A.'s (LOT) motion to dismiss and rejected LOT's proposal to deny class certification in the case captioned, IRYNA DOCHAK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POLSKIE LINIE LOTNICZE LOT S.A., Defendant, Case No. 15 C 4344 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs are a group of individuals who purchased airline tickets from Defendant LOT and arrived at their destination later than scheduled due to delayed or cancelled flights. They filed the Complaint asserting individual claims as well as 11 claims as a class that seek relief for: delay or cancellation of international airfare in violation of Article 19 of the Convention for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) (Count One); breach of contract for violations of Articles 19 and 22 of the Montreal Convention (Count Two); breach of contract for violations of Article 6 of European Union Regulation 261 (EU 261) (Counts Three, Seven, and Ten); breach of contract for violations of Article 9 of EU 261 (Counts Four and Eight); breach of contract for violations of Article 14 of EU 261 (Count Five); violations of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (Count Six); breach of contract for international airfare (Count Nine); and breach of contract for violations of Articles 5, 7, 9, and 14 of EU 261 and Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (Count Eleven). LOT filed a motion to dismiss the claims related to violations of the Montreal Convention and EU 261 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. LOT also argues that the Court should not certify Plaintiffs as a putative class under Rule 23. For the reasons given below, the Court grants LOT's motion to dismiss Counts Three, Four, Five, Seven, Eight, Ten, Eleven, and any individual claims without prejudice to the extent they seek redress for breach of contract due to violations of EU 261. In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/22xPTG from Leagle.com, Judge Kendall granted LOT's motion to dismiss Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, Eleven, and any individual claims for relief without prejudice to the extent that they seek redress for breach of contract under EU 261 because the provisions of the Conditions of Carriage quoted in the Complaint, with no other evidence of incorporation, fall short of plausibly establishing the requisite "clear and specific" intent to incorporate Articles 6 and 7 of EU 261 into the Conditions of Carriage. The Court denied LOT's Motion to dismiss as to Counts One, Two, Six, and Eleven and individual claims for redress under the Montreal Convention because all of which constitute economic compensatory damages that can be recovered under Article 29. The Court declined to consider LOT's arguments with respect to class certification because they are improper for the motion to dismiss phase. Iryna Dochak, et al. are represented by: Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VLADIMIR M. GOROKHOVSKY 6045 N. Greenbay Ave Glendale, WI 53092 Tel: (414)581-1582 Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A. is represented by Anthony U. Battista, Esq. -- abattista@condonlaw.com -- and -- Christopher R. Christensen, Esq. -- cchristensen@condonlaw.com -- CONDON & FORSYTH LLP -- and Brent R. Austin, Esq. -- baustin@eimerstahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Poseidon Concepts Corp.'s (Poseidon) and Poseidon's auditor KMPG LLP's (Canada) (KPMG) motion to dismiss in the case captioned, IN RE POSEIDON CONCEPTS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 13CV1213 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.). This is a securities class action brought against certain directors and officers of Poseidon Concepts Corp. and Poseidon's auditor KMPG LLP pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4 (PSLRA), on behalf of investors who bought Poseidon stock in the United States. Poseidon was a Canadian company whose stock traded both on the Toronto Stock Exchange and over-the-counter in the United States. The claims against KPMG arise solely from two statements made in KPMG's audit report for Poseidon's 2011 annual financial statements (the 2011 Audit Report). These statements are that (1) in KPMG's opinion, the financial statements fairly presented Poseidon's financial position in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS); and (2) KPMG conducted its audit in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (Canadian GAAS). The Third Amended Complaint (TAC) asserts two causes of action: (1) that KPMG and the Individual Defendants committed fraud in violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5; and (2) that the Individual Defendants are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In the motion, KPMG seeks dismissal of the Sec. 10(b) claim against it on the following four grounds: (1) that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over KPMG; (2) that the district is an improper venue; (3) the forum non conveniens doctrine; and (4) that the TAC does not state a claim against KPMG. In her Opinion and Order dated May 24, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xGV61Q from Leagle.com, Judge Cote found that the Lead Plaintiff has not shown that any of these factors required any change to KPMG's audit procedures under Canadian GAAS and does not bring a claim for failure to correct, and in fact eliminated such a claim when he amended his complaint. Gerald Kolar is represented by Jonathan Richard Horne, Esq. -- jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- and Phillip C. Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. -- and Timothy William Brown, Esq. -- lbrown@leebrownlaw.com -- THE BROWN LAW FIRM Tony J. Trunkel is represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. - jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP Defendants are represented by Paul Thomas Curley, Esq. -- pcurley@kbrlaw.com -- KAUFMAN, BORGEEST & RYAN, LLP -- and Patrick Stoltz, Esq. -- pstoltz@lcbf.com -- LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD PC KPMG LLP (Canada) is represented by John F. Hartmann, Esq. -- john.hartmann@kirkland.com -- Joshua Z. Rabinovitz, Esq. -- joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com -- and Nathaniel Jacob Kritzer, Esq. -- nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP PREMIER NUTRITION: Bid to Expand Consumer Class Denied ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a request to represent a larger class of consumers in the case captioned, VINCENT D. MULLINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-01271-RS (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Kathie Sonner represents a class of California consumers who purchased Joint Juice, a drinkable glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate supplement. She has sought to expand those classes to include members: (1) who purchased Joint Juice in all 50 states or, in the alternative, (2) who purchased the product in ten specific states. Premier contends Minnesota's consumer protection statute conflicts with the California's Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act because it (1) requires proof of reliance, and (2) demands an individualized examination of evidence rebutting the presumption of reliance. Premier points out that Florida and Michigan do not affirmatively permit plaintiffs to recover punitive damages. In his Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mf1Kkq from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that Premier has carried its burden to show that California's interest in applying its law to the consumers in the specific ten states is weak. Sonner's proposed ten-state class is therefore not appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case. Vincent D. Mullins is represented by Joseph Jeremy Siprut, Esq. -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC, Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- and Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST O'REARDON LLP, Adam J. Levitt, Esq. -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., Todd David Carpenter, Esq. -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP Kathie Sonner is represented by Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- and --- Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST O'REARDON LLP Premier Nutrition Corporation, formerly known as Joint Juice, Inc. is represented by Angel A. Garganta, Esq. - aagarganta@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP Premier Nutrition Corporation is represented by Anton A. Ware, Esq. -- anton.ware@aporter.com -- Jonathan L. Koenig, Esq. -- jonathan.koenig@aporter.com -- and Trenton Herbert Norris, Esq. -- trent.norris@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Daniel Scott Blynn, Esq. Guido Emerson Toscano, Esq. -- dsblynn@Venable.com -- getoscano@Venable.com -- and Jessica L. Grant, Esq. -- jgrant@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: FLSA Case Settlement Has Preliminary Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement in the consolidated action captioned, SAMUEL BRANDON KRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:08-CV-00965 TLN/AC (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Lac Anh Le originally filed her class action complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California on October 26, 2007, captioned Le v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2:07-cv-05476-MMC (N.D. Cal.), alleging violation by Defendant of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. (FLSA), and state labor laws on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. Plaintiff Samuel Brandon Kress, along with Jeffery LaBerge and Willow Markham, originally filed suit in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County on January 18, 2008, alleging violation of state labor laws on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. On or about August 14, 2008, the separate Le and Kress cases were consolidated to form Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:08-cv-00965-TLN-AC (the Consolidated Action). By Order dated November 25, 2009, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which is defined as all persons employed by PwC in the United States who, at any time during the period of December 11, 2005, to April 5, 2010: (a) worked as Associates in the Attest Division of PwC's Assurance Line of Service; (b) were not licensed as certified public accountants for some or all of the period they worked in the position; and (c) were classified as exempt employees while working in the position. The Parties engaged in private mediation before Mark S. Rudy on April 10, 2015, which process resulted in a signed Memorandum of Understanding, dated April 10, 2015, and the Settlement Agreement and Release, dated December 21, 2015. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel believe that the case is meritorious and that FLSA conditional certification was and continues to be appropriate in connection with these four FLSA classes. In his Opinion and Order dated June 2, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ITdEQg from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley held that plaintiffs meet all requirements for both class certification under Rule 23 and collective action certification under the FLSA. The Court appointed Plaintiff Lac Anh Le as Class Representative of the FLSA Attest Associate Class, Plaintiff Dana Blindbury as Class Representative of the FLSA TPDG Associate Class, Plaintiff Jason Patterson as Class Representative of the FLSA TVM Associate Class and Plaintiffs Lauren Barry San Mateo and Kelly Jones as Class Representatives of the FLSA DAI Associate Class. Peter A. Muhic and Monique Myatt Galloway from the firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, William Baird from the firm Marlin & Saltzman LLP, and Edward Wynne from the firm Wynne Law Firm as Class Counsel for the Settlement and ILYM Group, Inc. as Settlement Administrator. Samuel Brandon Kress, Jeffrey LaBerge, Willow Markham , Lac Anh Le, Jason Patterson, Lauren Barry, James Stekelberg , Samuel Brandon, Dana Blindbury, Jesse Kenne , Kelly C. Jones and Ricardo Ochoa represented by Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq. -- mgalloway@ktmc.com -- James Maro, Esq. -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- and Peter A. Muhic, Esq. -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Daria D. Carlson, Esq. -- dcarlson@mzclaw.com -- and - - Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq. -- jcompton@mzclaw.com -- MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP, Edward Joseph Wynne, Esq. -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- WYNNE LAW FIRM, Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. -- mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com -- Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. -- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- William Anthony Baird, Esq. -- tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com -- and Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. -- kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com -- MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP They are also represented by: Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHL & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP 2125 Oak Grove Rd Ste 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Tel: (925)945-0200 PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP is represented by Alexander Kosta Mircheff, Esq. -- amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- Julian Wing-Kai Poon, Esq. -- apoon@gibsondunn.com -- Michele Leigh Maryott, Esq. -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- and Lauren J. Elliot, Esq. -- lelliot@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. -- jliburt@orrick.com -- Julie A. Totten, Esq. -- jatotten@orrick.com -- Lynne C. Hermle, Esq. -- lchermle@orrick.com -- and Norman C. Hile, Esq. -- nhile@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Sept. 8 Case Management Conference Set ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that a Case Management Conference shall be held on September 8 in the case of ROBERT GALANG, Plaintiff, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03016-PJH, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the order is available at http://goo.gl/i9dI2C. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9, parties are required to file a joint case management statement addressing each of the items listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement," as attached in the order and which can also be found on the court's website. Following the conference, the court will enter its own Case Management and Pretrial Order. Robert Galang, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Borondia Grabarsky -- sgrabarsky@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw, Frank N. Darras -- frank@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw, Lissa Anne Martinez -- lmartinez@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw & Phillip Sinclair Bather -- pbather@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw. ROBERT DERING: Oviedo Hernandez Suit Has Conditional Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs' Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and Class Notice under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) in the case captioned, JOSE DE JESUS OVIEDO HERNANDEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT DERING CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-176 (S.D. Tex.). Plaintiffs Jose de Jesus Oviedo Hernandez, Donaciano Nieto, Lorenzo Vega, Javier Santillan, and Jose Leonel Hernandez Henriques, on behalf of themselves an all others similarly situated (Plaintiffs), filed the action against Defendant, Defendant Robert Dering Construction, LLC (RDC), under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), alleging that RDC misclassified its laborers as independent contractors and failed to pay its nonexempt employees at the federally mandated minimum wage and overtime rates. Plaintiffs allege that during the relevant statutory period that they worked for RDC as laborers, that they and other similarly situated laborers were misclassified as independent contractors and typically worked in excess of forty hours a week, but were not paid overtime and/or minimum wages. Plaintiffs allege that instead of paying overtime wages, RDC paid straight time wages without overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty hours per workweek. Plaintiffs allege that during the relevant statutory period that they worked for RDC as laborers, that they and other similarly situated laborers were misclassified as independent contractors and typically worked in excess of forty hours a week, but were not paid overtime and/or minimum wages. Plaintiffs allege that instead of paying overtime wages, RDC paid straight time wages without overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty hours per workweek. On March 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for conditional class certification seeking to certify the class. Plaintiffs' motion asks the Court to (1) conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice; (2) order that a judicially approved notice be sent to all Putative Class Members; (3) order RDC to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the potential class members' names, addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment; and (4) authorize a 90-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to join the case. RDC urges the Court to deny the pending motion for conditional class certification because Plaintiffs should be required to meet a heightened standard in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987), and identify other aggrieved individuals who wish to join the lawsuit because some discovery has been conducted. Also, RDC argues that Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are similarly situated with respect to whether they were employees of RDC. In his Memorandum and Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/etvXMu from Leagle.com, Judge Hanks, Jr. concluded that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the first stage of the Lusardi analysis, and the matter should be conditionally certified as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) with respect to the putative class members. The Court gave the Plaintiffs 14 days from the receipt of information to mail the proposed notice to the potential class members. The opt-in period shall be 90 days from the date the notice is mailed. Jose de Jesus Oviedo Hernandez, Donaciano Nieto, Lorenzo Vega, Javier Santillan and Jose Leonel Hernandez Henriques are represented by: Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown Street #570 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713)528-2936 Robert Dering Construction, LLC is represented by: Jonathan Charles Andresen, Esq. THE ANDRESEN FIRM PLLC 700 Louisiana St #2770 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713)335-0155 RYANAIR: CaseHub Mulls Class Action Over Hidden Fees ---------------------------------------------------- Toby Walne, writing for Aviation Pros, reports that budget airlines are heading for a bumpy ride as lawyers plan a class action to win refunds for millions of passengers hit by the growing menace of hidden fees. Legal firm CaseHub is hoping to take Ryanair to court to win at least pounds sterling 315-million over charges. The fightback comes as research firm IdeaWorksCompany found that pounds sterling 26-billion was creamed off in extras -- for everything from luggage to a pounds sterling 3 glass of water -- by 63 airlines in 2014. The US firm estimates this so-called 'ancillary revenue' rocketed to pounds sterling 40-billion last year. Simultaneously, the Civil Aviation Authority is launching an investigation into airlines amid concerns that too many passengers are being stung by 'unfair' charges -- often levied at the last minute. No-frills carrier Ryanair claims it is cutting flight prices by 7 per cent this summer in a ticket war among airlines to win back travellers put off by the recent spate of terrorist attacks. Yet the Irish airline fails to advertise how a quarter of the money it rakes in does not come from tickets but its notorious ancillary charges. It is a lucrative strategy as Ryanair enjoyed profits of pounds sterling 959-million in the year to March. Ryanair is far from alone in plundering passengers' cash while boasting of cut-price fares. No-frills specialist Wizz Air is one of the worst offenders, grabbing more than a third of its money from such charges in 2014. At Jet2, ancillary revenue accounted for 29 per cent of turnover, while for Flybe it generated 21 per cent of turnover and for easyJet 19 per cent. By contrast, just 2 per cent of British Airways' turnover came from extras. Jay Sorensen, IdeaWorksCompany president, says: "Airlines are increasingly using ancillary revenue as a way to cream off more money from passengers as it enables them to look like they are selling tickets at keen prices while boosting profits in other ways." Among the additional charges passengers incur is a fee for taking bags on holiday, checking in at the airport, printing a boarding pass and having a seat allocated. These costs can add up to more than the basic price of the flight. Travel blogger Elle Croft, 31, from Wandsworth in South-West London, says the last straw for her was when she was charged pounds sterling 3 for a glass of water. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Preliminary Approval of "Hinkle" Deal Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff moves for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Conditional Class Certification and Entry of Scheduling Order, in the class action lawsuit styled ROBIN L. HINKLE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CASEY JOE MATTHEWS, TIMOTHY MAY and CONNIE MAY, Husband and wife, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois Corporation; SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, A Georgia limited liability company; and JOHNNY HINKLE, the Defendants, Case 2:15-cv-13856 (S.D. W. Virg.). The Plaintiff requests the following: 1. That the Court enter an order preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement, and directing the parties to carry out their obligations pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. 2. That the Court appoint Robin L. Hinkle as class representative and appoint Jonathan R. Marshall of Bailey & Glasser LLP and Howard M. Persinger, III, of Persinger & Persinger as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BrhBfZCW The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-2205 Telephone: (304) 345 6555 Facsimile: (304) 342 1110 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com skinney@baileyglasser.com - and - Howard M. Persinger III, Esq. PERSINGER & PERSINGER, L.C. 101 Dickenson Street Williamson, WV 25661 Telephone: (304) 235 2000 Facsimile: (304) 235 3018 E-mail: hmp3@persingerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey D. Van Volkenburg, Esq. MCNEER, HIGHLAND, MCMUNN Varner, L.C. Post Office Box 2040 Clarksburg, WV 26302 - and - Daniel J. Konrad, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL 611 Third Avenue Huntington, WV 25701 SBEEG HOLDINGS: Morgans Hotel Shareholders Sue Over Acquisition --------------------------------------------------------------- GENE HUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SBEEG HOLDINGS, LLC, TROUSDALE ACQUISITION SUB, INC., THE YUCAIPA COMPANIES, LLC, HOWARD M. LORBER, ANDREW BROAD, KENNETH E. CRUSE, JOHN DOUGHERTY, JASON T. KALISMAN, BRADFORD NUGENT, MICHAEL E. OLSHAN, MICHELLE S. RUSSO and ADAM STEIN, Defendants, Case No. 12479- (Ch. Del., June 17, 2016), was brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Morgans Hotel Group Co. over a planned acquisition by SBEEG Holdings, LLC, of its wholly- owned subsidiary, Trousdale Transaction Sub, Inc. SBE Entertainment Group is a privately held hospitality company that develops, manages and operates hotels, restaurants and night clubs. 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 Phone: (302) 295-5310 - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (610) 667-6200 SCHERZINGER CORP: Court Tosses "Davenport" Wages Claim ------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge Sandra S. Beckwith of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Steven Davenport's claim of fraudulent inducement in the case captioned, Robert B. Colley, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. The Scherzinger Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-720 (S.D. Ohio). Plaintiff Robert Colley's original complaint in the case asserted claims against Scherzinger under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sec.201 et. seq.), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (Ohio Rev. Code 4111 et seq), and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act (Ky. Rev. Stat. 337.020 et seq). On December 4, 2015, Steven Davenport filed a notice of opt-in consent to join the case as a plaintiff. H.W. Althaus, Jr. is the President of Scherzinger, and has worked for the company since 1979. His declaration states that Scherzinger adopted a written complaint procedure for all its employees. The copy signed by Davenport on August 14, 2015 is attached as Exhibit 3 to his declaration. Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss all claims of the opt-in Plaintiff, Steven Davenport. Defendant argues that Davenport signed an agreement to arbitrate any employment-related claims he may wish to assert against Scherzinger. The motion argues that the agreement is valid and binding, and requires the Court to dismiss Davenport as a plaintiff. In her Order dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/hK1szQ from Leagle.com, Judge Beckwith found that Davenport's fraudulent inducement allegations fail to state a plausible claim, because he has not alleged that Scherzinger made a material false representation of fact upon which he justifiably relied in signing the agreement. Davenport is dismissed as a party plaintiff from the case. If Davenport wishes to pursue his FLSA and Ohio wage claims, he must do so in an arbitration proceeding before the AAA in Cincinnati, Ohio. Robert R. Colley is represented by Basil W. Mangano, Esq. -- bmangano@bmanganolaw.com -- Joseph J. Guarino, III, Esq. - jguarino@bmanganolaw.com -- and Ryan Keith Hymore, Esq. - rhymore@bmanganolaw.com -- MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., LPA Scherzinger Corporation is represented by Katharine C. Weber, Esq. -- katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com -- and Ryan Michael Martin, Esq. -- Ryan.Martin@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. SEADRILL LIMITED: Court Dismisses Securities Complaint ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion dismiss and denied, as moot, a motion to strike in the case captioned, In re SEADRILL LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 14 Civ. 9642 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.). Purchasers of Seadrill Limited (Seadrill) securities bring this putative class action lawsuit against Seadrill, its subsidiary and their officers, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead Plaintiffs Sheldon Glow; Zalman Harari, IRA; Zalman Harari; Zalman Harari as Custodian for Solomon A. Mandel UTMA; Aviva Harari IRA; Aviva Harari; Zalman and Aviva Harari and Abraham S. Harari IRA; and additional named plaintiffs Jeffrey Greenberg and Wing Lee purchased Seadrill securities. The Complaint alleges securities fraud based on failure to disclose the risk that significant contracts between NADL and the Russian company Rosneft would be thwarted by international sanctions following Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in March 2014. Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants violated the Exchange Act by making material misrepresentations and omissions. Defendants move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (the Complaint) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 9(b), 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4, and to strike allegations in the Complaint against a non-party pursuant to Rule 12(f). In her Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/aO6PuB from Leagle.com, Judge Schofield concluded that the Complaint does not sufficiently plead that Defendants consciously or recklessly made false or misleading misrepresentations or omissions. As the Complaint is dismissed, Defendants' motion to strike allegations against non-party John Fredriksen is denied as moot. Plaintiffs are warned, however, that, if they move for leave to amend their complaint, they should include only allegations that are relevant to the case. Sheldon Glow is represented by Jonathan Richard Horne, Esq. -- jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, Esq. -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and Phillip C. Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. -- and David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. -- d.rosenfeld@roselnlegal.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Harari Group is represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. -- d.rosenfeld@roselnlegal.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Seadrill Limited, et al. are represented by Jay B. Kasner, Esq. -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Matthew Barkan, Esq. -- matt.barkan@skadden.com -- and Scott D. Musoff, Esq. -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP SHADE TREES: Couples Mull Class Action Over Wedding Venue Closure ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary McKenzie, writing for WBFF, reports that couples have come forward ahead of a possible class-action lawsuit against Shade Trees and Evergreens in Frederick, saying they are furious about how the wedding venue's closure has been handled. Frederick County shuttered the wedding venue in May for zoning violations, leaving some couples with no venue for their weddings and no refund for the money they paid. The couples have hired attorney Ilona Fisher, who said she will ask the court to open up a class action suit. Ms. Fisher also said she may file a complaint against Frederick County for allowing the business to operate for years without the necessary permits. There could be more than 100 couples affected by the venue's closing, Ms. Fisher said. Adam Brill, who works with Fisher, says the average amount each couple has lost is between four and five thousand dollars. The owner of the property filed an application on June 17 to demolish two of the buildings that lack proper permits, the Frederick County Executive's Office said. SIEMENS MEDICAL: 9th Cir. Affirm Ruling in "Pittman" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed an order denying a motion to set aside the judgment against the plaintiff in the case, RANDALL PITTMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS DIAGNOSTICS, a California Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 11-55967 (9th Cir.) The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion because of failure to establish extraordinary circumstance. Likewise, Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review plaintiff's challenges to the district court's judgment because plaintiff did not file a timely notice of appeal which serves as a jurisdictional requirement. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision dated June 6, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/7YqNdbfrom Leagle.com. SIMON'S SHINE: "Perez" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JORGE LUIS ORDONEZ PEREZ, a/k/a JORGE ORDONEZ, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. SIMON'S SHINE SHOP, INC., and Illinois corporation, d/b/a SIMON'S SHINE SHOP, DR. BEASLEY'S, INC., an Illinois corporation, THE LAFEBER GROUP, INC., an Illinois corporation, and JAMES E. LAFEBER, an individual, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06133 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2016), seeks: a. Judgment in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation found due at the rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular hourly rate of pay for all hours which Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks; B. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime compensation found due; C. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this action; and D. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. Defendants allegedly violated federal and state overtime laws by failing to pay Plaintiff, and other car wash and auto detailing employees, an overtime premium when they worked more than 40 hours in individual workweeks, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA). The Defendants provide hand car wash & detailing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. Nicholas P. Cholis, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322 1100 Facsimile: (312) 322 1106 E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com ncholis@nolanwagelaw.com SINGING RIVER: Montgomery Faces Dismissal of Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DOLLY ANN MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SINGING RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16CV17-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.), Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. ordered plaintiff to show cause on or before July 1 as to why her claims against the defendants should not be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the injunction entered in a related class action lawsuit, Jones v. Singing River Health System, et al., 1:14 cv447- LG-RHW. A copy of the Court's June 20 order is available at http://goo.gl/ex03r1from Leagle.com. Dolly Ann Montgomery, Plaintiff, represented by Gary McKay Yarborough, Jr. -- ylf.garyyarborough@att.net -- YARBOROUGH LAW OFFICE, PLLC. SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Affirmed Commissioner's Rulings in Atkins ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John W. Lungstrum of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas affirmed the Commissioner's final decision denying Disability Insurance benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income benefits (SSI) under sections 216(i), 223, 1602, and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act in the case captioned, TERESA R. ATKINS Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, Case No. 15- 1168-JWL (D. Kan.). Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI benefits, alleging disability beginning March 23, 2010. The Commissioner uses the familiar five- step sequential process to evaluate a claim for disability. The Commissioner denied Disability Insurance benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income benefits (SSI) under sections 216(i), 223, 1602, and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. Sections 416(i), 423, 1381a, and 1382c(a)(3)(A). On appeal, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision denying benefits. She argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in his credibility determination and in deciding that her condition does not meet the criteria of Listing 1.04A. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff's allegations of symptoms were not fully credible. In his Memorandum and Order dated May 24, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Wt26KZ from Leagle.com, Judge Lungstrum found no error in the ALJ's decision because the Plaintiff has not met her burden to show medical equivalence and admittedly not met her burden to show that her condition meets the criteria of Listing 1.04A. Teresa R. Atkins is represented by: Nicholas D. Purifoy, Esq. CHAMPION DISABILITY ADVOCATES 3245 Technology Blvd Lansing, MI 48910 Tel: (877)444-1327 Commissioner of Social Security Administration is represented by: Brian D. Sheern, Esq. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242 Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202) 514-2000 SOLAR CITY: Parties' Supplemental Brief Due July 1 -------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAVI WHITWORTH, Plaintiff, v. SOLARCITY CORP., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01540-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing by July 1, as to why the Court should not stay the matter while a decision is pending on the appeal in the case, Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 13-16599. The hearing for Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration which is currently set on June 30, 2016, is vacated. A copy of the Court's June 20 order is available at http://goo.gl/IVWpagfrom Leagle.com Ravi Whitworth, Plaintiff, represented by Jahan C. Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, Julia Rabinovich -- jrabinovich@outtengolden.com -- Outten Golden LLP & Robert Neil Fisher -- rfisher@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP. SolarCity Corp., Defendant, represented by Peter David Urias -- purias@solarcity.com -- SolarCity Corporation. SOUTH CAROLINA: To Make Reforms in Foster Care Amid Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Post and Courier reports that by agreeing to make reforms in foster care, the state of South Carolina is beginning a critical process to protect its most vulnerable children -- and to remove a shameful stain on its reputation for not having done so earlier. And after having underfunded the Department of Social Services for years, the Legislature has increased its allocation for the coming year. That's a welcome indication that lawmakers are serious about meeting the needs of children under the care of the state. South Carolina is under pressure because of a class action lawsuit alleging 11 children in foster care were abused, neglected, separated from their siblings and over-medicated. In settling that lawsuit, DSS agreed to: -- Find alternatives to group homes and institutions for children, far too many of whom were being placed there because foster families weren't available. -- Reduce case loads for workers, who were handling more than any reasonable standard would allow. -- Improve safety oversight. -- Ensure that foster children receive adequate medical care. Yes, accomplishing these pledges will cost the state even more money in coming years. But surely lawmakers won't quibble over paying for the care of children who have no parents caring for them. Sadly, the Legislature began to make changes only after devastating reports of children suffering and even dying while under the care of the state. The Post and Courier's Lauren Sausser also examined the foster care situation in a 2015 investigation called "Warehousing our Children." And indeed, lawmakers passed two laws aimed at improving the system on behalf of children in foster care. One allows families to take in more foster children than before. The state has a shortage of foster homes, perhaps partly because they are paid less than foster parents in all but five other states. The new law is intended to get more children out of institutions and into families, where they tend to thrive more. Currently too many children are being institutionalized -- at a rate higher than every other state in the country. In March, Gov. Nikki Haley, as part of an initiative to recruit 1,500 licensed foster parents, called on families across the state to take in foster children. The other law allows foster parents to make independent decisions so that the children in their care can engage in routine activities like going on a family vacation and getting a drivers license. Previously, such decisions required special permission. As DSS Director Susan Alford adds caseworkers, provides more training and increases support for foster care parents and staffers, the state's most helpless children will receive more and better support. The General Assembly is being criticized for not getting much done this year. But it should be commended for strengthening support for foster children. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Cal. Judge Sends "Lewis" Case to N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00749-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero approved Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, thus handing over to the Northern District of Texas the jurisdiction to hear the case. A copy of the Court's decision dated June 2, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/bbv3ygfrom Leagle.com. The district court has great discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness, Judge Spero noted. Plaintiff offered several arguments as to why the motion should be denied: (1) that Southwest has a field office in the district; (2) that plaintiff and his counsel would suffer inconvenience and expense from transfer; (3) that his state law claims give California a local interest in the case; and (4) that this district has more familiarity with California laws than the Northern District of Texas. However, Judge Spero found that relevant considerations weigh in favor of transfer to the Northern District of Texas: (1) that Lewis's choice of forum is entitled to minimal deference; (2) that convenience of the parties favors transfer; (3) that convenience of witnesses favors transfer; (4) that ease of access to evidence marginally favors transfer; (5) that familiarity with the applicable law marginally disfavors transfer; (6) that consolidation of claims is not relevant; (7) that Texas's local interest predominates; (8) that court congestion is neutral; and (9) that the circumstances as a whole favor transfer. Justin Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Alice A. Kim -- alice@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Alison S. Hightower -- ahightower@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Gilbert Anthony Castro -- gcastro@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Rod M. Fliegel -- rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C. SPRINT UNITED: Aug. 12 Post-Mediation Status Conference Set ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NORA SALAMANCA, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kansas Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-05084-JSW (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Jeffrey S. White further stayed all proceedings in this case and set a post-mediation status conference after finding good cause of stipulation submitted between both parties. Proceedings are scheduled to resume until after the completion of the parties' mediation, while the vacated June 17, 2016 post- mediation status conference is set for August 12, 2016 at 11:00, a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/l1Kpjnfrom Leagle.com. Nora Salamanca, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Tuvia Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Setareh Law Group. Sprint/United Management Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony J DiBenedetto -- adibenedetto@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Enzo Der Boghossian -- enzoderbo@gmail.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Harold M. Brody, Proskauer Rose LLP & Keith Allyn Goodwin -- kgoodwin@sheppardmullin.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP. STARBUCKS CORP: Latte Underfiling Class Action Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge said two Starbucks customers may pursue a lawsuit accusing the coffee chain of cheating patrons by underfilling lattes. In a decision on June 17, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco said the California plaintiffs may seek damages from Starbucks Corp in their proposed nationwide class action, including for fraud and false advertising. Starbucks was accused of overcharging customers by systematically serving lattes that are 25 percent too small, based on a recipe it adopted in 2009 to save money on milk. The plaintiffs, Siera Strumlauf of San Francisco and Benjamin Robles of Carlsbad, said Starbucks requires baristas to use pitchers for heating milk with etched "fill to" lines that are too low, and to leave 1/4 inch of free space in drink cups. They said this shorts customers because Starbucks' cups for tall, grande and venti lattes hold exactly 12, 16 and 20 ounces. "This is not a case where the alleged deception is simply implausible as a matter of law," Judge Henderson wrote. "The court finds it probable that a significant portion of the latte- consuming public could believe that a 'Grande' contains 16 ounces of fluid." Judge Henderson did not rule on the case's merits. He dismissed three of the plaintiffs' eight claims against Seattle-based Starbucks, as well as their request for injunctive relief. Starbucks spokesman Reggie Borges on June 20 said the company believes the lawsuit is without merit and is prepared to defend itself against the remaining claims. He also said that if a customer is not satisfied with how a beverage is prepared, "we will gladly remake it." Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond on June 20 to requests for comment. The case is Strumlauf et al v. Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 16-01306. STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Bower" ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff moves for Class Certification and Relief from Memorandum, Supporting Documents, and Automatic Briefing Requirements, in the class action lawsuit styled RHONDA BOWER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STONELEIGH RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO. 15, LLC, the Defendants, Case 2:16- cv-00728-NJ (E.D, Wisc.) To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UUehQk2A The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. 4ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com STRYDEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Badger" Suit -------------------------------------------------- District Judge C. Darnell Jones, II United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned, CORNELIUS A. BADGER, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. STRYDEN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. . 2:09-CV-3619-CDJ (E.D. Pa.). The instant suit began when Cornelius Badger filed a purported class action Complaint against Stryden Corporation on October 1, 2009, based on allegations of race discrimination in employment. On July 29, 2010, Mr. Badger filed an Amended Complaint naming twelve other individuals as co-plaintiffs and adding two additional defendants, Novos Associates, LLC and Major Logistics. While Mr. Badger proceeded on his own behalf pro se, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Abdul-Karim, Mr. Horton, and Ms. Hemmingway, (Plaintiffs), elected to be represented by William Coleman. Defendant Stryden moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim because the action is barred by: (1) res judicata, (2) laches, (3) the statute of limitations and (4) factual insufficiency. Defendant's Motion is supported by less than two pages of points and authority, which focuses primarily on Defendant's position that both Plaintiffs and their allegedly discriminatory supervisors were in fact employed by Major Logistics, LLC, not Defendant. Defendant makes multiple conclusory arguments unsupported by points and authority, but more thoroughly argues that Stryden is not a proper Defendant because the allegations of wrongdoing occurred under the employ of Major Logistics LLC, which is not properly alleged to be controlled by Stryden. In the Memorandum dated May 25, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mu1OR0 from Leagle.com, Judge Jones, II dismissed as to Count I of the Second Amended Complaint because the facts pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint fail to state a claim against Stryden for race-based discrimination and in keeping with the Court's reasoning regarding Mr. Badger and Count III of the Second Amended Complaint because the facts pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint fail to state a claim against Stryden for misclassifying Plaintiffs as "independent contractors". Plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed on Count II finding that Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs are not within the statute of limitations because their claims do not relate back is unavailing. James Horton is represented by: William T. Coleman, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM T. COLEMAN III 1999 Bascom Avenue, Suite 928 Campbell, CA 95008 Tel: (650)641-1800 Stryden, Inc. is represented by Lee C. Durivage, Esq. -- lcdurivage@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN & Stephanie K. Rawitt, Esq. -- srawitt@clarkhill.com -- CLARK HILL THORP REED Enterprise Holdings, Inc. is represented by Catherine Thea Barbieri, Esq. -- cbarbieri@foxrothschild.com -- and Franz Espanol, Esq. -- fespanol@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP STYLES FOR LESS: $3,600,000 Settlement Has Preliminary Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement and the joint motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the case captioned, ASAL SALLY MANOUCHEHRI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STYLES FOR LESS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, Defendant, Case No. 14CV2521 NLS (S.D. Cal.). On October 22, 2014, Manouchehri filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the TCPA by Styles for Less. On August 4, 2015, another plaintiff, Pooney Mehrazar-Arzani, filed a class action in the U.S District Court for the Central District of California, alleging similar violations of the TCPA by Styles for Less. Plaintiffs allege that Styles for Less, a retailor, obtained phone numbers from its customers through its website and in its stores, then repeatedly and intentionally sent marketing and advertising text messages to its customers' cell phones. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant sent them advertising and marketing text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system without their granting of prior consent to receiving these messages, in violation of the TCPA and 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200. Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of themselves "and all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3)," which includes "All consumers who received a text message from styles for less from October 16, 2013, to December 15, 2015, which text message was not made for emergency purposes, was not made by a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, did not deliver a health care message, or was not made with the recipient's prior express written consent." Under the terms of the Settlement, defendant agrees to pay a $3,600,000 Settlement Fund to satisfy awards to class members, class representative payments, class counsel fees and litigation expenses, and settlement administrative costs. The parties jointly request leave to file an amended complaint adding Mehrazer-Arzani to the action. In her Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/nC5oPL from Leagle.com, Judge Stormes granted preliminary approval because the present class action Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements set forth by Rule 23(a) and 23(b), and provides an adequate means of notice to absent class members and approved the appointment of representatives and class counsel to the action. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file Exhibit 2 of the James R. Patterson declaration as the first amended class action complaint by June 27, 2016. Asal Sally Manouchehri is represented by James Richard Patterson, Esq. -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC Plaintiff is also represented by: Evan M. Meyers, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive. 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312)893-7002 Styles for Less, Inc. is represented by Jessica A. Mcelroy, Esq. -- JMcElroy@BlankRome.com -- Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. -- ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com -- and Esteban Morales, Esq. -- EMorales@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP -- and Joshua Briones, Esq. -- JBriones@mintz.com -- MINTZ LEVIN SUGAR ROCK: W.Va. Court Reverses Summary Judgment Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Justice Robin Davis of the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed a circuit court's award of partial summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings the case captioned, SUGAR ROCK, INC.; GERALD D. HALL; IAMS GAS COMPANY; IAMS OIL COMPANY; CUTRIGHT GAS COMPANY; AND KEITH OIL COMPANY, Defendants Below, Petitioners, v. D. MICHAEL WASHBURN; LISA A. BUZZARD; CLAIRE ROBINSON; EDWIN L. DEEM; REA WEDEKAMM; MARY WAKEFIELD; KENNETH A. TOWNSEND; ANNA LEE TOWNSEND WELLS; CLYDE TOWNSEND; MICHAEL RUBEL; JEROME RUBEL; KEITH WHITE, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BERTIE C. COX; AND J.F. DEEM, Plaintiffs Below, Respondents, Case No. 15-0124 (W. Va.). Clifton G. Valentine initiated the litigation on November 14, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Ritchie County, West Virginia, against Sugar Rock seeking a dissolution of the subject partnerships, alleging them to be mining partnerships. While Mr. Valentine was the only plaintiff named in his suit, he specifically referenced many of the respondents herein, attempting to obtain class action status for his litigation against Sugar Rock. Several of these same respondents were added as plaintiffs to the instant proceeding when the First Amended Complaint was filed on December 1, 2011. The remaining respondents were added as plaintiffs when the Third Amended Complaint was filed on or about December 17, 2014. The Third Amended Complaint also pled in the alternative, averring that the subject partnerships were either mining partnerships or general partnerships. The plaintiffs filed a second motion for partial summary judgment, requesting that certain leases be declared partnership property and seeking a dissolution of the subject partnerships as well as the appointment of a special receiver and a distribution company to accomplish the dissolution. The circuit court determined that the partnerships should be dissolved and, in doing so, determined that certain leases were property of the partnerships. On appeal, Sugar Rock contend that the circuit court erred by ordering the dissolution of the parties' partnerships by refusing to determine the precise type of partnerships at issue herein because such a determination is essential to ascertaining the partners thereof, the resolution of which is a necessary prerequisite to ordering their dissolution. In his Order dated June 3, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XeK4yT from Leagle.com, Justice Davis found there exist genuine issues of material fact so as to render summary disposition of the case improper given that the crucial initial issue of the specific type of partnerships at issue has not yet been determined, such that the members thereof permitted to request their dissolution also have not been established. Sugar Rock, Inc. et al. are represented by W. Henry Lawrence, Esq. -- wlawrence@steptoe.com -- Amy M. Smith, Esq. -- asmith@steptoe.com -- and William J. O'Brien, Esq. -- cobrien@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC Washburn, et al. are represented by: James S. Huggins, Esq. Daniel P. Corcoran, Esq. THEISEN BROCK 424 2nd St Marietta, OH 45750 Tel: (740)373-5455 SWIFTSHIPS LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Panzer" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff moves for Class Certification in the class action lawsuit styled PAUL PANZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWIFTSHIPS, LLC, SWIFTSHIPS SHIPBUILDERS, LLC, SWIFT GROUP, LLC, ICS NETT, INC, and ICS MARINE, INC., the Defendants, Case 2:15-cv-02257-CJB-SS (E.D. La). The Plaintiff seeks certification of this class of persons: "Any person who applied to Defendants and did not receive a clear and conspicuous written disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes and on whom Defendants obtained a consumer report or background check for employment purposes for the period beginning two years prior to the filing of the Complaint and continuing through the date the class list is prepared." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5zAckjht The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599 5953 Facsimile: (888) 988 6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net - and - Christopher L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C. 639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850 New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 308 1438 Facsimile: (504) 308 1446 E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com TALMER BANCORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Michigan --------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors of class action against Talmer Bancorp, Inc. ("Talmer" or "the Company"). The class action has been filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Talmer common stock on January 26, 2016, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Talmer by Chemical Financial Corporation ("Chemical"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants, Talmer, its Board of Directors (the "Board") and Chemical, for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Talmer entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Chemical on January 25, 2016. The Merger Agreement in the "Proposed Acquisition" stated that Chemical would obtain Talmer by buying all of its remaining shares at a $0.4725 per share of Chemical common stock and $1.61 in per share of Talmer common stock. Once stocks are purchased, Talmer would merge into Chemical. The Complaint alleges that Defendants forced Talmer and Chemical to file a Joint Preliminary Prospectus/Joint Proxy Statement on Form S-4 (the "Proxy") on March 31, 2016 in effort to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition. The Proxy encouraged Talmer investors to vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, and failed to disclose material information essential for shareholders to make informed decisions regarding the Proposed Acquisition, including material information about the biased sales procedure, conflicts of interest, the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition, the real worth of Talmer on an individual basis and as to be acquired by Chemical, and the data, inputs and assumptions Talmer's and Chemical's financial advisors employed in their fairness analyses. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint and join the action, visit the firm's website: http://www.bgandg.com/#!tlmr/ldzbz To discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in Talmer you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. It represents institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. TEXAS: Denial of Class Cert. in Taxpayers' Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------ Justice Anne Gardner of the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying a motion to certify a class action under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42 in the case captioned, CITY OF ALEDO, Appellant, v. TODD C. BRENNAN AND VALERIE S. SMITH, FRANK GALLISON AND NANETTE GALLISON, REBECCA HANLEY, GORDON HIEBERT AND KIMBERLY HIEBERT, WILLIAM HOOD AND LEONILA HOOD, LAYNE KASPER AND JESSICA KASPER, JAMES KITCHEN AND MARTHA KITCHEN, SHAUN KRETZSCHMAR AND NATALIE KRETZSCHMAR, SCOTT MITCHELL AND LESLIE MITCHELL, EVAN PETERSON AND GAYLE PETERSON, BRIAN STAGNER AND AMY STAGNER, STEVEN TOMHAVE AND JETTY TOMHAVE, AND ROBERT WOOD AND MARY FRANCES WOOD, Appellees. AND TODD C. BRENNAN AND VALERIE S. SMITH, FRANK GALLISON AND NANETTE GALLISON, REBECCA HANLEY, GORDON HIEBERT AND KIMBERLY HIEBERT, WILLIAM HOOD AND LEONILA HOOD, LAYNE KASPER AND JESSICA KASPER, JAMES KITCHEN AND MARTHA KITCHEN, SHAUN KRETZSCHMAR AND NATALIE KRETZSCHMAR, SCOTT MITCHELL AND LESLIE MITCHELL, EVAN PETERSON AND GAYLE PETERSON, BRIAN STAGNER AND AMY STAGNER, STEVEN TOMHAVE AND JETTY TOMHAVE, AND ROBERT WOOD AND MARY FRANCES WOOD, Appellants, v. CITY OF WILLOW PARK, TEXAS, PARKER COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, PARKER COUNTY APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD, CITY OF ALEDO, TEXAS, AND LARRY HAMMONDS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PARKER COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR, Appellees, Case No. 02-14-00147-CV, 02-14-00153-CV (Tex. App.). In March 2010, the City of Willow Park brought suit against Brennan and Smith to collect taxes for the years 2003 through 2007. Brennan and Smith counterclaimed, the rest of the Taxpayers intervened, and the Taxpayers joined as third parties the City of Aledo, the Parker County Appraisal District, the Parker County ARB, Hammonds in his official capacity as Parker County Tax Assessor/Collector, and the members of the Parker County ARB in their official capacities. The Taxpayers asserted counterclaims and third-party claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus relief against the City of Willow Park, the City of Aledo, the Parker County Appraisal District, the Parker County ARB (collectively, the Government Entities), Hammonds, and the members of the Parker County ARB (collectively, the Government Officials). The Taxpayers sought declaratory relief as to the impropriety of the Government Entities' and Government Officials' actions, as well as a refund of the taxes they paid to the Cities for the tax years 2003-2007. The Taxpayers also filed a motion to certify a class action of "no less than 250" property owners in the Cities who, in 2008, were assessed city property taxes on their properties for the tax years 2003 through 2007. The Government Entities and Hammonds filed pleas to the jurisdiction, alleging that that the Taxpayers had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and that, in any event, the Government Entities and Hammonds were entitled to governmental immunity. The trial court granted the pleas to the jurisdiction and dismissed with prejudice the Taxpayers' counterclaims and third-party claims. The Taxpayers appealed. This court determined that the trial court erred in granting the pleas to the jurisdiction on both grounds, reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded the Taxpayers' claims to the trial court. After remand, the City of Aledo filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the assessed back taxes were not invalid or void on several grounds. The trial court heard the City of Aledo's motion and the Taxpayers' motion to certify a class action on the same day. The City of Willow Park nonsuited its collection suit because by then all of its taxes had been paid. The trial court rendered orders denying the City of Aledo's motion for summary judgment and the Taxpayers' motion to certify a class action. Both the Taxpayers and the City of Aledo appeal the denial of their respective motions. The Taxpayers argue in the context of their class certification appeal that the facts pled to defeat the Government Entities and Hammonds's jurisdictional arguments in the prior appeal support "an eventual outcome" in their favor. The City of Aledo complains in its appeal that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment on the Taxpayers' claims. In her Memorandum Opinion dated June 2, 2016 available at https://is.gd/HoG7wn from Leagle.com, Judge Gardner also held that the trial court erred by granting the Government Entities and Hammonds's plea to the jurisdiction on the ground that the Taxpayers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the tax code. As to the appeal of the City of Aledo, the Court concluded that the City failed to prove as a matter of law that Hammonds correctly followed section 25.21 in assessing the back taxes in the case. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion. THERANOS INC: Boies Schiller Serves as Chief Case Defender --------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that as lab test startup Theranos Inc.'s woes multiply with a wave of class action lawsuits, board member David Boies is showing no sign of reducing his firm's role as chief defender of the company. In filings in federal court here on June 22, three Washington- based attorneys for Boies, Schiller & Flexner entered appearances on behalf of Theranos in a proposed class action suit that alleges the company misled consumers about the reliability of its blood testing technology. Earlier this month, Los Angeles-based Sean Eskovitz -- a Boies Schiller alum -- came to the company's aid as local counsel in the case. (Theranos' general counsel, Heather King, is also a Boies Schiller alum.) It's the continuation of a long relationship between the now embattled Silicon Valley company and the litigation powerhouse. Mr. Boies himself, chairman and founder of the firm, went to battle for Theranos in a bitter patent dispute against a father- son inventor team that ended with a settlement in 2014. In 2015, Mr. Boies joined the company's board of directors and then represented them in connection with claims the company's technology was flawed. Since then, observers like UC-Berkeley law professor Steven Davidoff Solomon have questioned Mr. Boies' dual roles: representing the interests of Theranos' private investors as a board member, and defending the company as its lawyer. With the June 23 appearances in the consumer class actions, "he's just doubling down on the conflict" Mr. Solomon said. If the company's regulatory and legal problems ultimately evaporate, that may not pose an actual problem, Mr. Solomon added. But if things go south, that could put Mr. Boies in a "sticky situation," he said. Mr. Boies could not be reached for comment. In an interview with The New York Times in April, Mr. Boies said that Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes continues to have the board's full backing. At the same time, he said another unnamed law firm was responding to queries from the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and conducting an independent investigation into whether Theranos made proper disclosures to investors. The Boies Schiller attorneys who appeared on June 23 in the class action suit are Michael Brille, Amy Mauser and Evan North. Theranos has not named counsel for at least four other pending suits that involve similar claims. The class action blitz comes after Theranos in March voided two years' worth of blood test results following warnings from federal regulators about the adequacy of the labs. The Wall Street Journal has also reported that Ms. Holmes and a former executive who has now departed have also been threatened by regulators with a two-year ban from running any lab. THERANOS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action Over Lab Test --------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawsuits are continuing to pile up against Theranos Inc., the once vaunted Silicon Valley medical startup, in the wake of the company's May disclosure that it had been forced to void thousands of blood tests because the results were unreliable. On June 21, attorneys at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer joined the fray, filing a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all consumers who purchased a Theranos lab test back to 2013. The suit throws breach of contract claims at Theranos and alleges violations of California false advertising and unfair competition laws. "Defendant's aggressive conduct without regard to public safety, and its inaccurate public statements about its new testing process with the Edison [device], have affected the ability of the reasonable consumer to rely on the Theranos' results provided or make health care decisions based upon them," the suit, filed by Kaplan Fox's Laurence King, says. The complaint is the latest in a wave of litigation now facing the embattled company, headed by Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford drop out who until recently drew comparisons to Steve Jobs. Theranos has turned to Sean Eskovitz of Los Angeles litigation boutique Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz to defend one of the first complaints filed in the Northern District. Mr. Eskovitz, a former Munger Tolles & Olsen partner, has a record of representing both individuals and companies in government investigations and prosecutions and spent four years as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, according to his law firm bio. The firms lining up against Theranos include class action heavyweight Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, which launched a suit on behalf of consumers in California and Arizona -- the two states where Theranos offered tests. Attorneys at Girard Gibbs have also sued and named Walgreens as a defendant. The pharmacy chain had a partnership with Theranos to offer blood tests, but the suit alleges its executives never conducted due diligence into Theranos' technology and failed to notify customers when it learned that the tests were unreliable. Lawyers at McCuneWright have at least two suits pending against Theranos, one of which also involves Walgreens. Theranos' claim to fame was developing a device called "Edison" that could use only a tiny amount of blood in conducting tests for a wide range of diseases. But the company didn't have regulators' approval to use the Edison device outside of a laboratory setting for anything but a herpes simplex test, the suits allege. In March, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found serious problems with operations at the company's labs in Newark and in Scottsdale, Arizona, revelations first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Regulators have proposed revoking the license for Theranos' Newark lab and banning Holmes from the business for two years. Forbes Magazine estimated Ms. Holmes's net worth last year at $4.5 billion. This month, the magazine reduced its estimate of her net worth to $0. TICKETMASTER: Customers Get Free Concert Tickets Under Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Kahn, writing for Jambase, reports that a recent class action settlement involving Ticketmaster has resulted in the company supplying many of its customers with codes for free concert tickets. Qualifying class members in the Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster Class Action Settlement have had their accounts awarded with vouchers that can be used to purchase tickets to future concert events. According to the administrators of the Class Action Settlement: Each Class Member who made a purchase transaction on www.ticketmaster.com between October 21, 1999 and February 27, 2013, should anticipate receiving, on or around June 18, 2016, at least one Ticket Code potentially redeemable for two tickets for concert events at Live Nation owned or operated venues, subject to availability and limitations. At this time, the page purporting to list eligible events for redeeming the free ticket vouchers currently does not detail any participating concerts. Each eligible live concert event, which as noted above will be at Live Nation venues such as House Of Blues, will have a limited allotment of tickets that can be secured using the free ticket vouchers and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. In addition to free ticket vouchers, class members can expect to have received discount codes for the use of UPS to ship tickets during the relevant time period. Up to a max of 17 discount codes worth $5 toward a future UPS payment were given to qualifying ticket buyers. Discount codes were also issued, with a maximum of 17 per account, offering a $2.25 credit on future online ticket sales. All of the discount codes and ticket vouchers must be used on or before June 18, 2020 at which point they will expire. TILE SHOP: Certification of Deduction & Overtime Classes Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff moves for class certification in the lawsuit styled ADRIEL OSORIO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. THE TILE SHOP, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00015 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff requests that the Court certify these Classes: Excessive Deduction Class: All persons employed in a Tile Shop retail store in the State of Illinois, except store managers, who had a deduction made, to a paycheck received at any time from January 2, 2005 up to and including the date of trial, in order to recoup a cash advance where the deduction was in excess of 15% of the gross pay received in that paycheck. Overtime Class: All persons employed in a Tile Shop retail store in the State of Illinois, except store managers, who worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek, from January 2, 2012 up to and including the date of trial, in which the total amount of compensation received, divided by the total number of hours worked, was less than 1.5 times the applicable minimum wage rate in effect. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B32xdDbV The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Bulgarelli, Esq. Ilan Chorowsky, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC 140 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 315 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 787-2717 TIME WARNER: Fails to Refund Cable Overcharges, Probe Shows ----------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lardner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Senate investigation of cable TV costs says two major cable companies have consistently failed to provide refunds to customers they knew had been overcharged. At a congressional hearing on June 23, Senators Rob Portman of Ohio and Claire McCaskill of Missouri released a report finding Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications made no effort to trace equipment overcharges and provide refunds to customers. Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications recently merged. The report says Time Warner Cable estimates customers were overbilled $640,000 nationwide in the first four months of 2016. The report says the company overbilled consumers nationwide by about $2 million annually for the past six years. Kathleen Mayo of Charter Communications says the company will explain to customers that they were overcharged and give them a one-year credit. TOTAL ACCOUNT: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, JOEL ABAYA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOTAL ACCOUNT RECOVERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-01269-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration but declined to dismiss Plaintiff's claims in their entirety. Plaintiff Joel Abaya (Plaintiff) alleges that Defendant Total Account Recovery, LLC (Defendant) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. (TCPA) by making autodialed calls to Plaintiff's cell phone without his consent in the course of trying to collect on an allegedly outstanding debt. Although Plaintiff purports to sue not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of others similarly situated, Defendant now seeks an order compelling arbitration under the terms of Plaintiff's loan agreement with FSST Financial Services, LLC d/b/a Bottom Dollar Payday (Lender). Defendant contends that as an agent retained by the Lender to collect on Plaintiff's debt, it falls within the Loan Agreement's definition of "related third parties." Plaintiff makes a number of substantive challenges to Defendant's attempt to compel arbitration in the matter, including contentions that 1) the claims encompassed by the arbitration clause do not include Plaintiff's unlawful debt collection claims under the TCPA; 2) the arbitration clause fails because of lack of mutual assent; and 3) the arbitration clause is unconscionable in any event. In his Memorandum and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/8F6yt4 from Leagle.com, Judge England, Jr. held that the arbitration clause at issue is clear in mandating that "gateway" issues determining the validity and scope of arbitration be determined by the arbitrator and that it would be unwise to dismiss the Complaint altogether. Instead, a stay pending completion of the arbitration proceedings one way or the other is the more prudent option. Joel Abaya is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. Total Account Recovery LLC is represented by Erin Sheffield Sanchez, Esq. -- esanchez@bzlawllp.com -- and Ralph Angelo Zappala, Esq. -- rzappala@bzlawLLP.com -- BUSBY & ZAPPALA LLP -- and Paul M. Croker, Esq. -- pcroker@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Circuit May Revive Arbitration Clause ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a panel of federal appeals judges gave clear signs on June 16 that it is ready to reverse a lower court decision finding the arbitration agreements that Uber Technologies Inc. circulated to its drivers were unenforceable. A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to revive Uber's arbitration clause could have significant ramifications beyond the case before the court. It would almost certainly impact an $84 million class-action settlement that is already teetering. Circuit Judge Richard Clifton took issue with the fact that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, who is presiding over both cases, had specifically disregarded a contrary Ninth Circuit decision in finding the arbitration agreements unconscionable. "I've got to say I have enormous respect for the district judge here," Judge Clifton said. "But . . . how can we affirm that? Circuit Judges Sandra Ikuta and Richard Tallman, who rounded out the panel, were also critical of Chen's ruling. Uber, represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous Jr., seemed have the upper hand in arguing that parts of the agreement seen as illegal could be severed from the contract without scrapping the entire agreement. Mr. Boutrous said Judge Chen was on a "seek and destroy mission" and was hostile to Uber's arbitration clauses. According to Uber, Judge Chen's rulings refused to follow the Ninth Circuit's 2013 en banc decision in Kilgore v. KeyBank, which held that an arbitration agreement cannot be deemed procedurally unconscionable if it provides meaningful opportunity to opt out. Laura Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- of Oakland-based Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho argued for Uber drivers who contend that the company violated state and federal laws in conducting background checks, including by not notifying them upon finding adverse information. Ms. Ho has reached a settlement with Uber in that suit, but the proposed settlement value would increase from $7.5 million to $9 million if she won the appeal. Ruling last year in Mohamed v. Uber, Judge Chen rejected Uber's arbitration agreements with its drivers as unfair and one-sided. Chen's order examined Uber's 2013 arbitration agreement, as well as a subsequent version introduced in 2014, finding both to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Among other concerns, he took issue with provisions that waived a driver's right to pursue claims under the state's Private Attorney General Act, or PAGA. The decision was virtually the same as rulings he handed down in the course of major California and Massachusetts class actions that alleged drivers should be treated as employees and reimbursed for gas and other expenses. An $84 million settlement in those cases is pending approval and Chen earlier this month was sharply critical of some of its elements. A finding by the Ninth Circuit that the arbitration agreements are enforceable would give Uber more leverage in any renegotiation of the settlement, should it be rejected, and would go a long way to slowing the onslaught of class action litigation that Uber has faced across the country. On June 16, the Ninth Circuit panel for the most part focused on the PAGA waiver. According to Uber, the provision at issue only bars drivers from arbitrating such claims, but allows them to be dealt with in court. Ms. Ho argued, however, that the restriction could be interpreted more broadly or is at best unclear, and thus is illegal under Ninth Circuit case law prohibiting PAGA waivers. But she had a difficult time getting the judges to buy that. "How can it be more clear?" said Judge Tallman. She also wasn't winning points with arguments that because Uber sent the arbitration agreement to drivers' electronic devices, and made them accept before accepting new fares, it didn't give them an adequate chance to review the details of the contract. "I'm having trouble with an argument that [being sent] things that you only read on your tablet or iPhone is procedurally unconscionable," Judge Ikuta said. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fate of Drivers' WARN Class Actions Uncertain ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Law.com, reports that labor lawyers on both the employer and employee side of the aisle predict some heavy lifting for Austin, Texas-based former Uber and Lyft drivers targeting the ride-hailing companies with twin class-action lawsuits. In complaints filed in San Francisco federal court this month, the former drivers allege the companies failed to provide plant- closing notices 60 days before shuttering operations in the central Texas city. The odds are slim that the drivers will prevail on their claims, and not only because Uber and Lyft insist that all their drivers are independent contractors and therefore not covered as employees under federal law, according to lawyers familiar with this type of litigation. Even if they get over the independent-contractor hurdle, the former drivers also must identify, according to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the federal statue upon which they based their claims, a specific geographic location where Lyft or Uber drivers all showed up to report to work, the labor lawyers said. "It's not a slam dunk for the plaintiffs, that is for sure," said Steve Fox, a shareholder in the Dallas office of Polsinelli, who represents Hamilton Scientific, which recently reached a $400,000 settlement with a class of 261 workers who lost their jobs when the laboratory furniture-making company closed a plant. "We'll have to wait and see," said Jack Raisner, a partner in New York's Outten & Golden, whose firm has represented since 2007 employees in more than 120 similar suits filed after companies shuttered operations. Historically, WARN Act, as it is known, was slow to catch on after Congress passed the federal law in 1988. The law began as "sleepy toothless tiger," Mr. Raisner recalled. The reason: Companies shuttering operations also typically filed for bankruptcy protection, staying other pending claims. Only since laid-off workers, many of them targeting financial service companies following the 2007-2008 economic meltdowns, began pursuing their WARN claims in bankruptcy courts, have the lawsuits been "thrust into the limelight," Mr. Raisner said. If the former Lyft and Uber drivers succeed, Mr. Raisner said, "It would be a positive development." But so far, the complaints they have filed are "barren of the allegations needed to prove a WARN event," Mr. Raisner said. "You have to pin it to where these people worked," he added. John Davis, an attorney with Austin's Slack & Davis who represents the former Lyft and Uber drivers, said he cannot yet calculate exactly what he or his clients stand to gain from the complaints filed against the ride-hailing companies. "I haven't done the math," Davis said. Under the law, he notes, the companies would be liable for 60 days back pay for each employee who was not given the required notice and possibly attorney fees. Uber and Lyft have previously provided estimates of having more than 10,000 drivers available in Austin. That was before May when, following a city-wide vote to keep an ordinance requiring ride-hailing drivers to undergo fingerprint-based background checks, Uber and Lyft followed through on their promise to leave town. Uber did not provide a comment for this story. Chelsea Wilson, a spokeswoman for Lyft, emailed a statement, which said: "The lawsuit is without merit and we look forward to resolving it quickly. It is based on federal law that applies to employees and not independent contractors like Lyft drivers who have the flexibility to determine when, where and for how long they drive." UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Certification in "Brown" ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the Court of Federal Claims denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify as a class action the case captioned, DOUGLAS G. BROWN et al., For Themselves and As Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 15-1297C (Ct. Fed. Cl.). In the Rails-to-Trails case, plaintiffs own real property in Cleveland County, North Carolina, adjacent to a railroad right-of- way. They contend that the United States, by authorizing the conversion of the railroad right-of-way into a recreational trail pursuant to the National Trail Systems Act (Trails Act), took their property without paying just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs bring suit in the court on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. Plaintiffs move to certify the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), defining the proposed class as "All persons who on August 4, 2015, owned an interest in lands constituting part of the railroad corridor or right-of-way on which a rail line was formerly operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), from milepost SB 144.55 to milepost SB 154.50 and from milepost SB 158.10 to milepost (SB) 160.00, in Cleveland County, North Carolina, and who claim a taking of their rights to possession, control and enjoyment of such lands due to the operation of the rail banking provisions of the National Trails System Act (NTSA), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1247(d). Excluded from this Class are the owners of land that abut segments of the subject right-of-way that the railroad acquired fee simple to; railroad companies and their successors in interest; [and] persons who have elected to pursue their claims in separate lawsuits against the United States for compensation for the same interests in land." Plaintiffs contend that they have satisfied all of the requirements of RCFC 23, while defendant asserts that plaintiffs have not satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and superiority requirements. In her Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/qZSNWe from Leagle.com, Judge Sweeney concluded that the proposed class fails to completely satisfy any of the rule's requirements. In particular, they have not satisfied the numerosity, typicality, and superiority requirements, and they have failed to satisfy elements of the commonality and adequacy requirements. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report containing a proposed schedule for the liability phase not later than June 10, 2016. Douglas G. Brown, et al. are represented by John Robert Sears, Esq. BAKER STERCHI COWDEN AND RICE, LLC USA is represented by: Joanna Kathryn Brinkman, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202)353-1555 UNITED STATES: Nonprofits to Pursue PACER Fee Claims in Fed. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that score one point for the government in the ongoing battle over how the federal judiciary charges users to access electronic court records. The U.S. Department of Justice successfully knocked out one of three lawsuits challenging fees charged by the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, system. Washington state resident Bryndon Fisher filed two lawsuits this year claiming that a computer glitch caused PACER to overcharge users. A federal district judge in Washington state dismissed one of those cases on June 15. The Justice Department filed papers the same day asking the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to dismiss Fisher's other case. Meanwhile, a group of nonprofits is pursuing claims in Washington, D.C., federal court that accuse the judiciary of deliberately, and unlawfully, overcharging PACER users in order to fund other administrative expenses. The Justice Department is preparing to contest certification of a class in that case. The PACER system charges users 10 cents per page to view court records online, with a maximum charge of $3 per document. Mr. Fisher claims that the PACER system overcounts certain portions of the docket -- the section that lists the case name and number, and the parties and lawyers involved -- when it runs a user's search. The miscalculation, he said, adds at least one additional 10-cent charge to every docket retrieval. Mr. Fisher claimed he'd been overcharged by $37 over the past two years. Mr. Fisher first filed suit in the federal claims court in late December, and then filed a second, nearly identical lawsuit the next day in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma, Washington, dismissed that case on June 15, writing that Mr. Fisher ran afoul of the "first-to-file rule" by filing in two different courts. Although Mr. Fisher defined slightly different potential classes of users in the two cases -- excluding PACER users with more than $10,000 in claims in the Washington state case, and including them in the first suit -- Settle said that meant the case in federal claims court could be all-inclusive. Mr. Fisher's lawyer, Noah Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe in San Francisco, did not immediately return requests for comment on June 16. A spokesman for the federal judiciary declined to comment. In a brief filed on June 15 in the nation's capital, Justice Department lawyers ask Federal Claims Judge Thomas Wheeler to dismiss Mr. Fisher's suit. PACER's policy agreement said that users must submit billing error claims within 90 days of the bill at issue, but Mr. Fisher and other members of the alleged class never did so, the government said. The Justice Department argued that any possible contractual duty was limited to claims that were properly submitted, so Fisher had failed to state a viable case. Mr. Fisher's reply is due July 18. In the nonprofits' action, which accuses the judiciary of charging a fee rate that is more than necessary to maintain the PACER system, the Justice Department is putting together its response to the plaintiffs' request to certify a class. In May, the government told the court it was also exploring whether it would ask to join that case with Fisher's suit in the federal claims court. "Although the theory of overcharging appears to be slightly different, counsel intends to assess whether the claims here would or should be part of that action," the Justice Department wrote in a footnote. The government's response to the class certification request is due July 11. Plaintiffs are represented by Gupta Wessler of Washington; Motley Rice of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; and the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center. UNITED STATES: High Court to Decide on Immigrant Detention Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Hananel, writing for Associated Press, reports that the Supreme Court will decide whether some immigrants locked up longer than six months during deportation proceedings should have a chance to be released. The justices said on June 20 they will take up an issue that affects thousands of immigrants detained for months or years without the benefit of a hearing to determine if their confinement is justified. The Obama administration is seeking to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that said any immigrant detained more than six months is entitled to a bond hearing. The government argues that automatic bond hearings should not extend to immigrants detained at the border or those who commit certain crimes or engage in terrorist activity. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled last year that holding immigrants indefinitely violates their due process rights. The three-judge panel also said the government must prove an immigrant poses a flight risk or danger to the community to justify denying bond. The government says the case is critical to its ability to control the borders and reduce the risk of terrorism. Requiring a bond hearing within six months would simply encourage more people to cross the border illegally and delay legal proceedings, the Justice Department argued in legal briefs. Allowing the lower court ruling to stay in place "creates an incentive for people to make a potentially life-threatening trip to this country, to abuse our legal process to obtain entry into the United States, and then to disappear rather than appear at any removal proceedings," government officials said. The class action lawsuit involves about a thousand immigrants in California who have been locked up for longer than six months without a bond hearing. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says the average class member has been incarcerated 404 days. The Justice Department says about 38,000 immigrants released on bond between 2010 and 2014 did not return to face removal proceedings. But ACLU officials say that number includes many people released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after their initial arrest, without having gone through a full court hearing. The ACLU argues that requiring mandatory bond hearings every six months does not mean immigrants automatically will be released. "It merely requires hearings before immigration judges," the ACLU said in legal briefs. "Those judges answer to the attorney general, who has ultimate authority to reverse any release decisions." The case is Jennings v. Rodriguez, 15-1204. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Must Defend Against "Ung" TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard H. Kyle of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Defendant's motion for the entry of judgment in the case captioned, Spencer Ung, Plaintiff, v. Universal Acceptance Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 15-127 (RHK/FLN) (D. Minn.). In the putative class-action, Plaintiff Spencer Ung alleges that Universal made unauthorized calls to his cell phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). His two-count Complaint alleges that Universal negligently (Count I) and willfully (Count II) violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone using an autodialer without his consent. He seeks statutory damages of up to $1,500 per call and an injunction "requiring (Universal) to cease all communications in violation of the TCPA." The parties then engaged in discovery for much of a year. Because of delays in receiving information regarding the putative class, Ung requested and was granted an extension to April 1, 2016, to move for class certification. Shortly before Ung filed such a motion, however, Universal attempted to moot the case. Specifically, on March 21, 2016, it "hand-delivered to Ung's counsel a certified check in the amount of $18,000 made payable to plaintiff and his counsel, along with a letter providing an offer" to stipulate to an award of costs under Rule 54 and an injunction prohibiting future calls to Ung's cell phone. By letter dated March 25, 2016, Ung rejected the offer and returned the $18,000 check to Universal's counsel. One week later, he moved to certify a class, arguing that Universal called over 370,000 different cell phone numbers without consent. In his motion, Universal moves for the entry of judgment, asserting that the action is moot arguing that because Universal had tendered to Ung the maximum amount of damages he could arguably recover in this case, and because it also had offered a stipulated injunction and an award of costs, Universal claims it has afforded Ung complete relief. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 3, 2016 available at https://is.gd/QBN6MS from Leagle.com, Judge Kyle denied Universal's attempt to "pay Ung the entire amount of individual relief he seeks in the Complaint in hopes of mooting his individual claim and, thus, presumably, incapacitating the class action." Spencer Ung is represented by Patrick J. Helwig, Esq. -- phelwig@lawpoint.com -- and Peter F. Barry, Esq. -- pbarry@lawpoint.com -- BARRY & HELWIG, LLC Ung is also represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Michael S. Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD 55 W Monroe St #3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312)726-1092 Universal Acceptance Corporation is represented by David L. Hartsell, Esq. -- dlh@dewittmcm.com -- and Patrick C. Summers, Esq. -- pcs@dewittmcm.com -- DEWITT, MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE, S.C. and Sarah A. Zielinski, Esq. -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP US DISTRICT COURTS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Atchison" ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to dismiss in the case captioned, BERNICE C. ATCHISON Plaintiff, v. U.S. DISTRICT COURTS, et al. Defendants, Case No. 14-2045 (RC) (D.D.C.). Plaintiff Bernice C. Atchison, proceeding pro se, seeks damages from various Defendants associated with the series of lawsuits in this District that culminated in In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, 856 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011). Specifically, Ms. Atchison named as Defendants the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Defendant Court); Stephen C. Carpenter, court-appointed Ombudsman in In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation; the law firm Conlon, Frantz & Phelan, L.L.P.; James Scott Farrin; Andrew H. Marks; Henry Sanders; Gregorio Francis; Honza Prchal; and the Claim Facilitator in In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation. On April 14, 1999, a court in this District approved a consent decree that settled a class-action lawsuit brought by African- American farmers alleging racial discrimination by the USDA in the application of its credit and benefits programs. Ms. Atchison alleges that Defendants' actions violated her constitutional rights, including her right to due process and seeks $331,050 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in pain and suffering damages. Multiple Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on a variety of grounds. In his Memorandum Opinion dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/kXuOQ3 from Leagle.com, Judge Contreras found that the Complaint does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court and that sovereign immunity bars Ms. Atchison's claims against the Defendant Court. The Court also found that Ms. Atchison's attempts to serve process were untimely. In the situation, the Court would typically grant an extension of time for Ms. Atchison to attempt to perfect service, but an extension would be futile here because the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Court will grant the remaining Defendants' motions and dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. District Courts is represented by: Megan Anne Crowley, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202)353-1555 Conlon, Frantz & Pelham LLP is represented by David Joseph Frantz, Esq. -- jfrantz@sbfamlaw.com -- CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP -- and William H. White, Jr., Esq. -- wwhite@bonnerkiernan.com -- BONNER KIERNAN TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP Andrew H. Marks is represented by Keith J. Harrison, Esq. -- kharrison@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING, LLP Stephen C. Carpenter is represented by Jennifer L. Spaziano, Esq. -- jen.spaziano@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP US PATENT COMMISSION: Court Sends "Henderson" Suit to Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendants' motion to direct Plaintiff to proceed to arbitration on an individual, rather than class, basis in the case captioned, YOLANDA HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. PATENT COMMISSION, LTD., THE GRAY LAW GROUP, LTD., INVENT WORLDWIDE CONSULTING, LLC, ALAN GREEN, RON STERLING, CARYN ROHDE, ANGELA STEVENS, CANDICE PAGE, ROBERT GRAY, STEVEN FISHER-STAWINSKI, and XAVIER HAILEY, Defendants (N.D. Ill.). Yolanda Henderson seeks to develop and sell what she believed to be her invention of "glitter paint," entered into two contracts with U.S. Patent Commission, formerly known as Invent Worldwide Consulting. Pursuant to the first agreement, the "Step 1 Agreement," U.S. Patent Commission would perform a search to determine the patentability of Henderson's putative invention. Under the second agreement, the "Step 2 Agreement," U.S. Patent Commission would "create 2D and 3D drawings of the invention, provide Henderson with a list of manufacturers, and file a provisional patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)." The Step 2 Agreement included an arbitration clause identical to that in the Step 1 Agreement. Henderson paid $100.00 for the services specified in the Step 1 Agreement and $2,600.00 for the services specified in the Step 2 Agreement. Henderson brought the putative class action against U.S. Patent Commission, Ltd. and several of its employees, The Gray Law Group and several of its employees, and two defendants who have been dismissed. She alleges that Defendants conspired to deceive her from discovering that glitter paint was neither patentable nor profitable, violating both federal and state law. As noted, the court compelled arbitration on November 1, 2015. On February 8, 2016, Henderson filed a demand for arbitration before the JAMS arbitral forum seeking class treatment of her claims. In the motion, Defendants contend that the Step 1 and Step 2 Agreements do not permit class arbitration. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/76V1xN from Leagle.com, Judge Feinerman held that the availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability presumptively for the court, not for the arbitrator. Henderson must proceed with an individual arbitration and may not pursue class arbitration. Yolanda Henderson is represented by Amelia Susan Newton, Esq. Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- Jordan Rudnick, Esq. -- jordan@attorneyzim.com -- Matthew C. De Re, Esq. -- matt@attorneyzim.com -- Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. -- nick@attorneyzim.com -- and Sharon Harris, Esq. -- sharon@attorneyzim.com -- ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. The Gray Law Group, Ltd. is represented by Charles E. Harris, II, Esq. -- charris@mayerbrown.com -- and Joseph Michael Snapper, Esq. -- jsnapper@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP VERIZON WIRELESS: $1.2 Million Attorney's Fee Award Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fee Award and Class Representative's Incentive Award in the case captioned, JOHN LOFTON, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 13-05665 YGR (N.D. Cal.). Defendant Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC (Verizon) is engaged in the business of providing wireless telephone and data service. Plaintiff John Lofton alleges: (a) that Collecto, acting as Verizon's agent, recorded debt collection calls that were meant for Verizon customers but that instead reached non-customers, without prior disclosure of recording, in violation of the IPA; (b) that the dialing systems that Collecto used to make the calls use predictive dialers and other automated telephone dialing systems, in violation of the TCPA; and (c) that the alleged violations of the IPA and TCPA give rise to a violation of the UCL. The Parties have engaged in extensive discovery, including depositions taken by both Verizon and Lofton, and substantial production of documents by Verizon and Collecto, and have had a full and fair opportunity to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. On September 21, 2015, the Parties participated in a mediation session with Mediator Antonio Piazza, and ultimately accepted the mediator's proposal for a class action settlement. The deal provides for Defendant to establish a $4 million cash settlement fund. Additional information on the settlement is available at: http://debtcollectionsettlement.com/ In her Order dated May 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/r5pC7p from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers granted the request and awards Class Counsel attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in the total amount of $1.2 million as fair and reasonable under a common fund analysis in light of the circumstances of the case. The Court approved and appointed A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator, the law firms of Parisi & Havens LLP and Preston Law Offices as Class Counsel and Lofton as class representative. John Lofton is represented by David Christopher Parisi, Esq. -- dparisi@parisihavens.com -- and Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, Esq. -- shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com -- PARISI & HAVENS LLP -- and Ethan Mark Preston, Esq. -- ep@eplaw.us -- PRESTON LAW OFFICES Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC is represented by Ellen Medlin Devereux Richmond, Esq. -- Ellen.Richmond@mto.com -- and Jonathan Hugh Blavin, Esq. -- Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com -- MUNGER, TOLLES AND OLSON VIACOM INC: Faces "Gilbert" Shareholder Lawsuit in Del. Ch. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC GILBERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUMNER M. REDSTONE, SHARI REDSTONE, VIACOM INC., NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LLC, GEORGE S. ABRAMS, PHILIPPE DAUMAN, THOMAS E. DOOLEY, CRISTIANA FALCONE SORRELL, BLYTHE J. MCGARVIE, DEBORAH NORVILLE, CHARLES E. PHILLIPS, JR., FREDERIC V. SALERNO, WILLIAM SCHWARTZ, NICOLE SELIGMAN, KENNETH LERER, THOMAS J. MAY, JUDITH MCHALE and RONALD NELSON, Defendants, Case No. 12478- (Del. Ch., June 17, 2016), was brought by Plaintiff, a holder of shares of Class B common stock of Viacom Inc., on his own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated Viacom Class B stockholders. Viacom Inc. is a global media brand company that operates through two segments, Media Networks and Filmed Entertainment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth M. McGeever, Esq. Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. Elizabeth M. McGeever, Esq. Corinne E. Amato, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 888-6500 Fax: (302) 658-8111 - and - Eric L. Zagar, Esq. Robin Winchester, Esq. Kristen L. Ross, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (267) 948-2512 VOLKSWAGEN AG: Gas Car Owners in Korea File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Dong-a Ilbo reports that Korean consumers will file a class action lawsuit against gasoline cars of Volkswagen, which prosecutors' recent prove found to have manipulated the engine- control unit (ECU) to meet the emission standards. According to the auto industry on June 19, Barun Law, a Korean law firm, decided to file a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court against Audi Volkswagen Korea and the Volkswagen head office on behalf of the owners of "Golf 1.4 TSI," which turned out to have sold vehicles with a defeat device. A total of 1,567 units have been sold since March last year. Prosecutors announced on June 17 that when Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI failed to pass the emissions test in Korea, the head office in Germany ordered its Korea office to manipulate the ECU software. In addition, the law firm has decided to file a criminal lawsuit against those responsible in Volkswagen for allegedly deceiving consumers on behalf of consumers. On top of this, it would file a petition to the Environment Ministry, urging the government to suspend the ongoing recall process with Audi Volkswagen Korea and order a replacement order on the vehicles. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Class Action Over Emissions for $10 Bil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Spector and Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that Volkswagen AG is nearing a $10 billion civil settlement, the largest in the auto industry's history, to compensate U.S. owners of vehicles affected by the German car maker's emissions-cheating scandal, said people familiar with the matter. Under the proposed deal, Volkswagen would offer to buy back cars and provide additional compensation for owners of almost 500,000 diesel-powered vehicles with two-liter engines that contain software capable of duping government emissions tests, the people said. In addition, Volkswagen is expected to pay more than $4 billion for environmental impacts and to promote so-called zero-emission vehicles, the people said. Volkswagen faces other government penalties in the U.S. and around the globe. "If VW succeeds in settling the case, it will take a big step forward but have many more ahead of it," said Erik Gordon, a professor at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business. "The enormity of VW's world-wide problems are hard to estimate but already are many times what management originally thought." Volkswagen is offering to either buy back vehicles at their market value before the scandal emerged in September or make affected vehicles compliant with environmental regulations. The car maker will also provide additional cash whether owners choose to sell or keep their cars, the people said. Consumers could get at least $5,100 and some could receive up to $10,000, beyond the price of the buyback or repair, one of the people said. Cars affected include model year 2009 to 2015 Volkswagen Jettas, 2010 to 2015 Volkswagen Golfs, 2012 to 2015 Volkswagen Passats and Beetles, and 2010 to 2015 Audi A3s, all with diesel engines. The settlement isn't the first time a car maker has been forced to repurchase autos. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV last year agreed in certain instances to repurchase some trucks in a settlement with U.S. car-safety regulators covering recall lapses involving millions of vehicles. "The consumer is finally getting their due, but it took a long time and lot of money," said Steve Kalafer, a Volkswagen dealer in New Jersey. He said an earlier program that offered Volkswagen diesel-car owners $1,000 and a roadside emergency-service plan "was deferring reality." Mr. Kalafer said dealers are waiting for the company to comprehensively address their woes. Volkswagen halted sales of affected vehicles in the fall, leaving dealers with expensive inventory. "It has been a nightmare for the retailers," he said. Stephanie Walkenshaw, who bought a diesel Jetta just over a year ago, plans to sell back her car and will be watching for any conditions attached to the payouts. The 38-year-old Denver resident has continued to drive the Jetta, which she purchased in part because she thought it was good for the environment. "I feel deceived and duped," she said. A Volkswagen spokeswoman declined to comment on June 23. Bloomberg and the Associated Press earlier reported some details of the expected settlement. The people cautioned that negotiations among Volkswagen, plaintiffs' lawyers and government officials involved in widespread litigation consolidated in a San Francisco federal court were ongoing and terms of the settlement could change. U.S. Judge Charles Breyer, who is overseeing the litigation, set a June 28 deadline for the auto maker and other parties to reach a settlement to resolve the emissions lapses. Elizabeth Cabraser, the lead plaintiffs' lawyer representing U.S. consumers, said in a statement that the settlement, "will provide substantial benefits to both consumers and the environment -- providing car owners and lessees fair value for their vehicles, while also removing environmentally-harmful vehicles from the road." The U.S. Justice Department sued Volkswagen in January on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, alleging the German car giant violated federal clean-air laws by using software known as defeat devices that allowed vehicles to pollute more on roadways than during government tests. The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces U.S. consumer protection laws, also sued the auto maker in March alleging the company falsely advertised "clean diesel" vehicles with low emissions. Volkswagen also faces claims by consumers alleging declining resale values and other grievances. The auto maker also faces litigation and investigations over similar allegations involving 85,000 diesel-powered autos with three-liter engines. Volkswagen has acknowledged installing the problematic software on some 11 million vehicles world-wide. In the U.S., officials said Volkswagen diesel-powered vehicles emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the allowable standard. Costs of the proposed deal raise the stakes for any future cases. Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors Co. paid $1.2 billion and $900 million, respectively, to settle criminal charges stemming from earlier safety lapses. Toyota was penalized for failing to report unintended acceleration issues while GM's case arose from millions of older cars with faulty ignition switches that were tied to 124 deaths in accidents. GM overall has reached settlements with the U.S. Justice Department, shareholders and thousands of consumers totaling more than $2 billion. It still faces additional litigation and trials over a faulty switch that could shut off power to air bags and power brakes. Japanese air-bag supplier Takata Corp. has suffered fines and faces a criminal probe in the U.S. over defective air bags in tens of millions of vehicles that can rupture and spray shrapnel. Takata has said it is cooperating with government officials. Volkswagen has set aside more than $18 billion to recall millions of vehicles and settle legal claims, and additional possible financial penalties still loom. Its troubles come as other auto makers have admitted to misstating fuel economy or been accused of emissions lapses. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. forecast a $1.38 billion loss for the fiscal year ending March 2017 after admitting it misstated fuel-economy on vehicles in Japan. The proposed U.S. settlement would mark a potential bookend for Volkswagen on the scandal. Some Volkswagen shareholders berated executives at the company's annual shareholders meeting in Germany over the company's response to the emissions cheating, which U.S. environmental regulators disclosed in September. The German auto maker has repeatedly apologized for the scandal. The Justice Department is separately conducting a criminal probe of Volkswagen over the emissions cheating. The auto maker decided against releasing initial findings of its own investigation in part because of concerns it could hurt any credit the company might receive from U.S. prosecutors for cooperating with the probe. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bondholders File Suit Over Emissions Scandal -------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Boston Retirement System, the public pension fund for Boston municipal employees, filed the first bondholders proposed class action against Volkswagen related to the company's diesel emissions scandal, law firm Labaton Sucharow said. The lawsuit, which also names as defendants Volkswagen Group of America and Volkswagen Group of America Finance, claims that "false and misleading statements and omissions" by Volkswagen caused its bonds to trade at "artificially inflated prices . . ., only to decline after the emissions scandal went public," the law firm said in a statement. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to recover damages for bondholders who purchased bonds between May 23, 2014, and Sept. 22, 2015, in sales that raised more than $8 billion for Volkswagen, the law firm said. "At the same time that Volkswagen was deceiving U.S. investors and regulators with its rigged emissions systems, it was raising billions of dollars from investors in the U.S. capital markets," Thomas A. Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- a partner with Labaton Sucharow, said in the statement. Volkswagen did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The German automaker misled bondholders by failing to disclose that it had used a device in some of its diesel cars that allowed them to temporarily reduce emissions during testing, which increased sales, the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, claims. The company, which faces a slew of litigation in Germany and in the U.S. by car owners and shareholders, has set aside $18 billion to cover the cost of vehicle refits and a settlement with U.S. authorities after admitting in September to cheating U.S. diesel emissions tests. In the United States, Volkswagen has until June 28 to reach a final diesel emissions settlement with government regulators and owners of nearly 500,000 2.0-liter vehicles. WHIRLPOOL: Settles Class Action Over Moldy Front Loading Washers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kara Kenney, writing for TheIndyChannel, reports that if you own a Whirlpool, Kenmore or Maytag front-loading washing machine manufactured between 2001 and 2010, you may be eligible for up to $500 in cash or a voucher toward a new washer as part of a class action settlement. Call 6 Investigates exposed odor, mold and other defects with front loading washing machines back in 2013. The court has not yet approved the settlement, but a hearing is scheduled for September 7 in U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio. If you're interested in getting money, you have to submit a claim by October 11, 2016. Ruth Ogden, of Gas City, bought a Whirlpool Duet front loader around 2004 and said after a year, she started noticing an odor in her clothes. "My son was as typical teenage slob, and we all thought the odor from him was getting into our clothes," said Ogden, adding that she threw out clothes worth hundreds of dollars. Ogden ended up spending money on product to clean her washer and to purchase a new washer, but said she might have difficulty getting any cash from the settlement. "Who saves receipts for 10 years of products to get the stink out of the clothes when you didn't even know that was causing it?" Ms. Ogden said on June 20. Ms. Ogden contacted Call 6 Investigates in the hopes of getting some of the settlement. "It's not just me, what about people who are worse off than I am?" said Ms. Ogden. "I've already replaced the washer, and I've kind of moved on." Depending on the documentation you can provide as a customer, you can receive a $50 cash payment, a 5% or 20% rebate toward the purchase of a new washing machine or dryer, or up to $500 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for repairs or replacement due to a mold or odor problem. Attorneys for customers alleged the washers had "serious design defects" that can cause mold and mildew and Whirlpool failed to warn consumers. Whirlpool released the following statement to RTV6 about the case: In April 2016, Whirlpool Corporation signed an agreement to settle its pending front-loading washing machine biofilm class-action cases. The settlement requires certain steps, including notification postcards and advertising, to ensure consumers are aware of the settlement administration process. That notification process began in early June, 2016. The company chose to settle to allow us to remove the continued distraction and expense of litigation. The washers included in the settlement were made during the 2000s, and only a small percentage of consumers -- less than 4 percent -- ever had a complaint about their washers. Whirlpool feels strongly that this type of litigation is not good for consumers and distracts U.S. manufacturers, like Whirlpool, from providing consumers with innovative, energy-efficient products. CASE BACKGROUND On May 11, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio preliminarily approved a nationwide class-action settlement agreement between Whirlpool Corporation, Sears Holdings Corporation and plaintiffs in the front-loading washing machine class-action cases. The settlement resolves all claims involving Whirlpool-manufactured front-loading washers made from 2001 to 2010. These include Whirlpool, Maytag, and Kenmore branded products. Case timeline: December 31, 2015: Term Sheet signed by Whirlpool Corporation, Sears Holding Corporation and plaintiffs in the front-loading washing machine class-action cases April 18, 2016: Proposed, signed settlement agreement filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio May 11, 2016: Court entered preliminary approval ruling June 2016: Settlement notice to class members September 2016: Anticipated final approval hearing By end-of-year 2016: Anticipated final approval ruling Companies have made design improvements to their machines, and experts said the new front-loaders have virtually eliminated mold with special vents in the back, hold-open doors to get air inside, and self-cleaning cycles. Experts say you can cut down on mold by removing damp clothes immediately, only using HE detergent, running a cleaning cycle and leaving the door open when not in use. WYNYARD GROUP: Fund Managers Seek Support for Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona Rotherham, writing for NBR, reports that two fund managers are seeking support for a class action by shareholders of software company Wynyard Group to recover losses since the share price has plunged following a disappointing annual result and a heavily discounted rights issue to raise cash. The campaign is being driven by Logic Funds principal Greg Marshall, who successfully waged a campaign that led to a $60 million settlement for Credit Sails investors and Australian-based Millinium Capital managing director Tom Wallace. Neither man is a current Wynyard shareholder and their plan is to receive part of a 20% fixed percentage fee from any successful court order or settlement if the class action proceeds. Mr. Marshall said preliminary investigations focused on whether Wynyard may have misled investors in statements relating to two key areas: reported revenue for 2015 of $26 million falling well short of its guidance of $40-to-$45 million, and director comments on the status of the deeply-discounted $30 million capital raising in March. The campaign has been kicked off to coincide with the crime- fighting and security software developer's annual general meeting in Auckland this afternoon, where they plan to try to attract shareholders to join the action, he said. The Wanaka-based funds manager said initial interest online from shareholders has been positive but a critical mass of affected shareholders was needed to pursue a class action. The period in question is from August 1, 2015, to February 16, 2016, during which time Marshall estimates more than 20 million shares changed hands with losses of potentially $30 million because of the share price decline. Wynyard shares are currently trading at 64c, having tumbled from about $1.50 after the company said its planned share placement at about $2 per share was no longer viable. It then reported a net loss of double the previous year's $22.2 million after contract revenue didn't materialize on time and the company made a heavy investment in new staff. Total operating costs were $57 million. The company eventually raised $30 million at 85c a share, well below the minimum $2 shareholders had approved in December because it needed the extra funds to meet its working capital requirements by the end of March. Since then it's had a major boardroom refresh and a new chief financial officer has been appointed. Litigation funder Vannin Capital is the frontrunner to take the case if the action gets sufficient shareholder support. Mr. Marshall said this campaign is quite different from the three- year Credit Sails one where the Commerce Commission was involved in reaching a settlement with the companies involved in marketing the product -- broker Forsyth Barr and French merchant bank Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank -- for $60 million to compensate losses estimated at $70 million. That case involved action to get redress under the Fair Trading Act and was more "clear-cut," he said. He has laid a complaint with the Financial Markets Authority over Wynyard. These types of class actions were not common in New Zealand but "they've nailed down the process a lot in the last year," he said. In May, Wynyard was queried over a 21% slump in its share price in a two-week period but said it had nothing to disclose. The company was spun out from Christchurch software firm Jade and listed on the NZX in 2013 at an issue price of $1.15 a share. Its shares peaked above $3 in 2014. It has forecast 2016 revenue to be between $54 and $65 million. The shares were trading at 65c on June 20. XO COMMUNICATIONS: Court Trims Cafferty Clobes' Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the First Amended Complaint (FAC)in the case captioned, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16 C 2331 (N.D. Ill.). Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP brought the lawsuit against XO Communications Services, Inc. under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), challenging the automatic renewal provisions of its Service Order Agreement. Plaintiff alleges (1) contract-based theories of recovery, (2) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (the Consumer Fraud Act), (3) violation of the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act, 815 ILCS 601/1 et seq. (the Automatic Renewal Act) and (4) unjust enrichment as an alternative to Count I. XO moved to dismiss that Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. (Rule) 12(b)(6), asserting Plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and under Rule 21 for a claimed misjoinder the latter on the ground that the originally named defendant had converted from a conventional corporation to a limited liability company in 2011. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 3, 2016 available at https://is.gd/uSWpST from Leagle.com, Judge Shadur dismissed without leave to amend Count I's contentions that XO breached the Agreement (a) because the Automatic Renewal Clause was not clear and conspicuous or (b) by collecting a $1,000 termination charge or (c) by seeking to collect a further $9,000 in early termination charges. Count II is dismissed without leave to amend as to as to XO's alleged failures (a) to disclose the Automatic Renewal Clause clearly and conspicuously and (b) to notify customers in writing before that automatic renewal and dismissed in their entirety without leave to amend Counts III and IV. The Court directed Cafferty Clobes to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint on or before June 23, 2016. Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP is represented by Katrina Carroll, Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- and Kyle Alan Shamberg, Esq. -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC * DOE's New Rules Target For-Profit-Schools' Forced Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Chen, writing for The Nation, reports that semester after semester, new students at Everest University, part of the Corinthian for-profit college chain, eagerly signed up for their colorfully marketed degree programs in accounting, health-care services, or other promising-looking trades, and probably barely glanced at the legalese. But buried in the fine print of Corinthian's byzantine enrollment contract was a Trojan horse: a clause that effectively traded away students' legal rights and bought them into an epic fraud scheme. Following Corinthian's financial implosion last year, the Department of Education (DOE) is now finally helping cheated students undo their legal bind. Corporations often use so-called "forced arbitration" agreements, as we've reported before, to preempt the rights of workers and consumers to bring lawsuits in financial or work-related disputes. Conflicts are instead channeled into out-of-court arbitration procedures with a private mediator (typically a management- approved third-party agent). The agreements may also restrict consumers from bringing class-action lawsuits as a group, or impose gag orders on signatories to prevent public exposure of disputes. A cascade of fraud scandals in recent years has left thousands of former for-profit college students with worthless diplomas, but their enrollment contracts continue to block their access to civil courts. The proposed rule, now pending a public comment period before being finalized, would not ban arbitration agreements outright, but would broadly prohibit for-profit schools from "us[ing] their enrollment agreements, or other pre-dispute arbitration agreements . . . to force students to go it alone by signing away their right" to wage joint lawsuits or complaints publicly about misconduct. Since the rule would cover institutions benefiting from federal direct loan funds, a crucial funding spigot for for-profit colleges and trade schools, advocates say it would likely change contracting practices throughout the industry. The new rules complement a parallel effort by the DOE to expand an obscure legal mechanism known as "Defense to Repayment," as a legal channel to provide loan "forgiveness" to aggrieved former students. The DOE promises to expand the process to grant discharges to groups of victims of scandal-ridden for-profit schools like Corinthian's, though relief has been halting so far. While advocates generally support the DOE's initiative, for many, the measures don't go nearly far enough to address either "rip-off clauses" or the underlying student-debt crisis. Meanwhile, many schools nationwide continue to spiral into financial turmoil, with for-profit schools making up an estimated half of student loan default cases nationwide, with about one-fifth of all student loans in default. According to Julie Murray of Public Citizen, even under the proposed reforms, students could still be subjected to a financial bait-and-switch when presented with a contract that stipulates a nominally "voluntary" arbitration provision: The department's proposal would treat that contract as "voluntarily" entered into by the student and thus permissible, but we expect schools will abuse this loophole by leading students to believe through the actions of their enrollment agents that the arbitration agreements are necessary to enroll, despite what the fine print says. Arguably, doing any business with a predatory industry carries risk of exploitation: "This rule is intended to target schools that engage in fraud as a business practice," Murray says via e-mail. "It is naive to believe those same schools will accurately explain a so-called voluntary pre-dispute arbitration agreement." The truly protective solution would be "to prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements altogether," so students would decide on arbitration only "once a dispute arises, with their eyes wide open." Just as for-profit college scams represent the dregs of a cesspool of debt pervading the higher education infrastructure, the scandalized schools' forced arbitration clauses reflect an underlying pattern of economic predation: coercive arbitration agreements have curtailed access to civil courts for workers and consumers in many sectors, through contracts for employment and various financial services. Outside of higher education, Bob Shireman of the Century Foundation says via e-mail, "This proposed rule does not address the broader problem of forced arbitration undermining consumers' rights and inviting abuse across the U.S. economy." Meanwhile, the grassroots economic-justice campaign Debt Collective, points out major shortcomings in the reform plans: DOE officials would have the final word on who is eligible for relief, exposing claimants to opaque and arbitrary reviews, with no guarantee of much-needed collective relief for all former students of major profiteers like Corinthian. Moreover, since the proposal is based on the federal Direct Loan program, some claimants under a parallel loan system, the Federal Family Education Loan Program, could face additional, potentially prohibitive eligibility requirements. The Debt Collective, which continues to campaign for justice for victims of for-profit college scams through direct-action campaigns and debt strikes, had long pressured DOE for a more robust, expansive Defense to Repayment process. The proposed rules are a step forward, but the group concludes, "we continue to believe that the Department is making it far too difficult for students to get the relief they are entitled to by law," and vows to keep pressuring authorities to follow through on a plan that, so far, "amounts to little more than a loose statement of intention to do right by student debtors after decades of collaboration with corrupt for-profits." Meanwhile, the industry may start ballooning again. As New York magazine reports, some schools are still gearing up for a comeback: The University of Phoenix, which has seen share prices fall by about 80 percent, is reportedly negotiating a new deal with a private equity firm. In the 2014-2015 school year, despite the scandals, for-profit higher-education institutions absorbed about one-fifth, or $16 billion of $96 billion, of total federal student-loan dollars. So despite the flood of scandals, neither the government nor its client schools seem to have learned the lesson that the whole enterprise of for-profit higher education is both ethically bankrupt and financially unsustainable. But the aspiring students, veterans and working-class parents saddled with debt- soaked scam diplomas, learned the hard way. If there is any real redemption for this debtor class, it's the movement their outrage has helped spawn. While profit-seeking institutions and their creditors, also known as our government, mete out another round of potentially toxic loans, a rising cadre of grassroots financial- justice activists continues mobilizing for a school system where a higher education is a social right, not a lifelong debt. * Senators Reach Deal to Require GMO Product Labeling Nationwide ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated Press, reports that senators have a bipartisan deal to require labeling of genetically modified ingredients nationally, a week before a labeling law in Vermont goes into effect. The deal announced on June 23 by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee would require labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in packaged foods nationwide. But it would be more lenient than Vermont's law, allowing food companies to use a text label, a symbol or electronic label accessed by smartphone. Vermont's law would require items to be labeled "produced with genetic engineering." The agreement couldn't become law before Vermont's law kicks in July 1, since the House is on vacation until July 5. Legislation passed by the House would make the labeling voluntary, but that measure stalled in the Senate last year. Since then, Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas have worked to find a compromise, saying a national solution is needed in the face of several separate state laws. The food industry has lobbied to block Vermont's law, arguing that GMOs are safe and the labels could be costly for agriculture, food companies and consumers. The industry's main lobbying group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said it is backing the senators' deal. The group has opposed mandatory labeling nationwide, but advocated for electronic labels in negotiations. "This bipartisan agreement ensures consumers across the nation can get clear, consistent information about their food and beverage ingredients and prevents a patchwork of confusing and costly state labeling laws," said Pamela Bailey, president of that group. One group that has advocated labeling criticized the deal. "This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by misleading consumers," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Food & Water Watch. Genetically modified seeds are engineered in laboratories to have certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides. The majority of the country's corn and soybean crop is now genetically modified, with much of that going to animal feed. Corn and soybeans also are made into popular processed food ingredients such as high- fructose corn syrup, corn starch and soybean oil. The food industry says about 75 percent to 80 percent of foods contain genetically modified ingredients. The Food and Drug Administration says they are safe, and there is little scientific concern about those GMOs on the market. But advocates for labeling say not enough is known about their risks. Among supporters of labeling are many organic companies that are barred by law from using modified ingredients in their foods. Those advocates have fought state by state to enact the labeling, with the eventual goal of a national standard. They have frowned on digital labels, saying they discriminate against people who don't have smartphones, computers or the know-how to use them. One group that has advocated labeling criticized the deal. "This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by misleading consumers," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Food & Water Watch. ********* 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 * * *