/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160630.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 30, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 130 Headlines 321 CAPITAL: Class Certification Motion Continued AIRBNB: Homeowners Sue over Right to Rent Out Homes ALBERTSONS LLC: "Sims" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in N.D. Ala. APPLE INC: "Lusson" Suit Over Fatal IPhone 6 Error Tossed AT&T SERVICES: Dito et al. May File Fourth Amended Complaint BADESCU SKIN: Settlement Notice Properly Published, Court Rules BARRY A. GOLDMAN: Johnson's Class Certification Bid Withdrawn BAY AREA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BI INCORPORATED: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA BLOUNT COUNTY JAIL: Pro Se Action Tossed, Plaintiff Must Pay $400 BLUE SKY: Settlement Reached with Animators BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct. BOGALUSA CITY: Roberts Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass CALIFORNIA, USA: Berndt Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. CARRCO PAINTING: "Sandoval Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Olsen Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass CHAMPLAIN VALLEY: $282,500 Settlement of Marroquin Suit Okayed CHIASMA INC: August 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set CHICAGO MERCANTILE: "Walsh" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA CIVIL DEMAND: Motion to Dismiss "Lee" Appeal Denied CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA CPI CARD: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Falsified Public Stock Offering CROATIA: Status Hearing in "Lalich" Holocaust Suit on Aug. 31 DAIRY AMERICA: Bids to Reconsider May 2 Order in "Carlin" Denied DELOITTE & TOUCHE: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Buttonwood Suit DEPENDABLE COMPANIES: "Winters" Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA DICRETE WIRELESS: "Walker" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA DUPONT: Awaits Decision on $4MM Smelter Settlement Surplus DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Stamer Seeks Class Certification EARTH INC: Class Action Settlement in "Hedges" Suit Approved EDUCATION CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in "Reyes" Suit F-19 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration FANNIE MAE: Faces "Bailey" Suit in Wash D.C. FANNIE MAE: Class Action Plaintiffs' New Briefs Due on July 1 FELT & LUKES: Rumpel Seeks Class Certification FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Gearshift FIELD ASSET: Trial in "Bowerman" Case to Begin May 2017 FIRST AMERICAN: 2nd Cir. Upholds Judgment and Cost Order FORD AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Dodgy Cars FUSION AUTOPLEX: Court Certifies Class in "Allen" Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Suits Allege Emissions Test Cheating GENERAL MOTORS: Court Grants Final Approval of $300-Mil. Accord GENGHIS GRILL: "Arnold" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA GERAWAN FARMING: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL: Dawson Seeks Class Certification GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: Court Won't Decertify Late Meal Break Class GULF INTERSTATE: Certification of Class Sought in "Sloane" Suit HANNIBAL, MO: Court Stays Discovery in "Blair" Suit HENRY INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Must Identify Representative HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Certification Sought in Humidifier Case HUBERT ALLEN: Ohno Enterprises Suit Remanded to State Court HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Dismisses Consumer Suit with Prejudice J. JACOBO: Court Grants Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Harrington Seeks Class Certification KRAFT HEINZ: "Lee" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 KRAFT HEINZ: "Randolph" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 KRAFT HEINZ: "Sellers" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 LA PICCOLA FONTANA: Certification of "Battistini" Class Granted LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Certification of Homeless Persons Class Sought LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE: Sept. 8 Case Management Conference Set LONE STAR: "Anzaldua" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES: Sanon-Lauredant Must Amend Complaint MACY'S INC: Faces "Carder" Suit in N.D. Cal. MDL 2067: Painters Fund Appeal Ruling in Suit v. Forest MDL 2262: Banks' Bid for Leave to Strike Class Allegations Nixed MDL 2328: Motion to Exclude Johnson Testimony Denied MDL 2331: Court Remands Michelson's Product Liability Suit MDL 2437: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Ashton Woods' Claims MDL 2521: Oct. 26 Oral Argument on End-Payors' Class Cert. Bid MICHAELS STORES: 9th Cir. Reverses Denial of Motion for Judgment MICHIGAN, USA: Certification of Class Sought in "Hill" Suit MO'S FISHERMAN: Court Rules on Conditional Cert. Bid in "Mendoza" NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Rules on Fee Bid in "Geoffrion" Suit NEW YORK: Wells' Class Certification Motion Denied NEW YORK: Court Reinstates Pay & Benefits for Bearded Cop NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AK: Convent's Class Cert. Bid Revived NORTHWEST HOSPITAL: Sued for Allegedly Violating Charity Care Law OCEAN DETAILING: "Burke" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA OXY USA: Court Decertifies Class in "Roderick" Suit PANASONIC CORP: Judge Spots No Reason to Seal Complaints PEOPLES UNITED: Faces "Casseres-Pinto" Suit in S.D. Fla. PLAIN GREEN: Appeals to 2nd Cir. From Ruling in "Gingras" Suit PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: July 11 Oral Argument on Motions to Dismiss PLS DIABETIC: Class Certification Sought in Podiatry Case POST: Faces Class Suit Over Shredded Wheat 'All Natural' Claim PREMIER OFFICE: Faces "Peguero" Suit in S.D. Fla. QUALITY RESOURCES: Faces "Pierluca" Suit in M.D. Fla. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: $2.35MM Settlement in Emmons Has Initial Okay RAYONIER INC: Must Defend Against Securities Litigation REDDY ICE: Settlement in "Brown" FLSA Case Approved REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Complaint RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Faces "Mendlowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y. RUTHERFORD COUNTY: T.H. Files Suit v. Board of Education SELECT PORTFOLIO: Aug. 25 Case Management Conference Set SEQUOIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Chein" Suit in E.D.N.Y. SILVER WHEATON: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action SLD DELI: "Mendez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA SONY CORP: Settles Class Suit Over PlayStation 3 for $7MM SOTERIA LOSS: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Vacates Atty Fees Award in Voucher Suit SP AUSNET: Maurice Blackburn Quizzed Over Bushfire Settlement STARBUCKS CORP: Must Defend Against Underfilled-Latte Claims STERLING JEWELERS: Settlement in "Tapia" Granted Final Approval STRIPE A ZONE: "Nugent" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA SUNOCO INC: Appeals to 3rd Cir. From Ruling in "White" Class Suit SUNRUN INC: Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel Due July 26 SUPREME PRODUCTION: Bid for Class Cert. Filed in "Kubala" Suit SWF OPERATIONS: Wins Final OK of "Kohler" Suit Class Settlement TARGET CORPORATION: Sued Over Parmesan Cheese False Ad TIME WARNER: Wisconsin Judge Dismisses Privacy Class Action TRANSENTERIX INC: Sued in N. Car. Over Inflated Stock Price TRILLIUM HEALTH: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Sought in "La Crosse" TRUSTONE FINANCIAL: Bulger Seeks Class Certification UDREN LAW: Pa. Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in "Glover" Suit UNITED FEDERAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Gunter Complaint Denied UNITED SERVICE: Policyholders File Class Action Against Lawyers UNITED STATES: Court Strikes Amended Complaints in "Johnson" Suit UPLAND, CA: Faces "Hilliard" Suit in C.D. Cal. USA WHEEL: Abrego Seeks Collective Action Certification UTAH: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Legal Representation VIACOM: Shareholders Sue Redstone, Daughter VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Investor Class Action Over Emissions Scandal WAL-MART STORES: "Cruz" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 WELLS FARGO BANK: Court Certifies Classes in "McLaughlin" WESTFORD REGENCY: "Aucoin" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Act WHOLE FOODS: Sued Over False Dietary Supplement's Vit. A Content XTO ENERGY: 2nd Bid for Class Certification in "Roderick" Denied YUCAIPA AMERICAN: Centonze Seeks to Block SBEEG Holdings Merger ZIMMERMAN REED: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Amended Complaint * South African Gold Mining Companies to Appeal Silicosis Ruling ********* 321 CAPITAL: Class Certification Motion Continued ------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit styled ABC Business Forms, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. 321 Capital Partners, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06256 (N.D. Ill.) , is entered and continued generally, according to a Notification of Docket Entry, a copy of which is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bDxpnXI1 As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 20, 2016, ABC Business Forms, Inc., asks the Court to enter an order determining that its lawsuit may proceed as a class action. The Plaintiff defines the classes as: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons in Illinois (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action (815 ILCS 505/10a), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. ABC further asks that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vc6PFH71 The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com jclark@edcombs.com AIRBNB: Homeowners Sue over Right to Rent Out Homes --------------------------------------------------- Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that homeowners across the nation are fighting back against cities' attempts to stop them from renting out their homes for short stays, through websites such as Airbnb and HomeAway. Los Angeles has sued the owners of three rent-controlled apartment buildings, claiming they illegally evicted tenants to try to make more money through short-term rentals. Even as Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed his cases June 17, homeowners in Austin, Texas sued the city on constitutional claims, challenging a law that makes it more difficult for them to rent their houses. The Austin homeowners say the new city ordinance is "carpet bombing" their constitutional rights. And on June 20, in Los Angeles, a federal class action made similar arguments against the City of Santa Monica. Los Angeles' lawsuits differ from the ones involving Austin and Santa Monica, as Feuer is going after landlords of multi-unit housing, not private homeowners, but all the cases stem from the rapid growth of Internet ad sites for short-term rentals. The Santa Monica class action, from lead plaintiff Arlene Rosenblatt, cites both websites as ways for homeowners to make money, and claims a city ordinance that attempts to ban short term rentals is an unconstitutional restraint of interstate commerce, an unconstitutional taking, and de facto condemnation. The City Council approved the ordinance on May 12, 2015 and it took effect on June 15 that year. (Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 6.20.010 et seq.) Rosenblatt says Santa Monica enacted the ordinance to pad city coffers: specifically, to protect the 14 percent transient occupancy tax it collects on hotel and motel rooms. She claims that Santa Monica's 3,483 rooms in its 34 hotels are inadequate for the city's tourism industry and the shortage drives up prices at Santa Monica's already overpriced hotels, many of which start at $500 a night. In June 2015, when the city enacted the ordinance, the occupancy rate at Santa Monica hotels was 86.2 percent, compared to a nationwide occupancy rate of 65.6 percent, according to the complaint. To top it off, she says, the median rent for a one- bedroom apartment in Santa Monica in January was $3,490, making homeownership a valuable asset for anyone with a room to spare. "The ordinance not only prohibits engaging in transactions for short-term rentals, but also prohibits utilizing the Internet, the interstate marketplace for short-term rentals, or any other forum to list, facilitate, or advertise short-term rentals," Rosenblatt says in the complaint, though she does not specifically allege a First Amendment claim. She seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, an injunction and punitive damages. She is represented by Jordan Esensten, of Los Angeles. Meanwhile in Austin, Ahmad Zaatari et al. sued the city and its Mayor Steve Adler in Travis County Court. All seven plaintiffs rent their homes for short terms. Six of them have a Type 2 city license, one has a Type 1 license. Type 1 and 1A licenses are for are owner-occupied residential rentals. Type 2 licenses are for residential rentals in which the owners do not claim the property as their homestead. Type 3 rentals are for a multifamily complex. Zaatari says that 55 percent of Austin residents rent their homes, with the high cost of homeownership a major reason for this. Austin home values have increased by more than 78 percent in the past 15 years, and property taxes have risen accordingly. "Many Austin property owners -- including plaintiffs -- rent out their homes on a short-term basis to afford the increasing cost of living in Austin due to the economics that short-term rentals generate more revenue than long-term rental use of the same property," the complaint states. Zaatari's lawsuit takes aim at the ordinance governing Type 2 rentals, as amended on Feb. 23 this year. He claims it violates the Texas Constitution's guarantees of privacy, assembly, due process and equal protection, and authorizes unconstitutional searches and seizures. "The STR [short-term rental] Ordinance prohibits short-term rentals in previously permitted residential areas, phases out existing, lawfully operating short-term rental properties, restricts the number of people allowed to step foot on any short- term rental property, dictates the movement and association of 'assemblies' in short-term rentals, and sets a bedtime for tenants. The City cannot carpet bomb the constitutional rights of short-term rental owners and lessees under the auspices of zoning or code enforcement," the complaint states. Among other things, the ordinance prohibits more than 10 related adults, or six unrelated adults, from using a short-term rental at one time -- regardless of the square footage or capacity. It also prohibits more than two adults per bedroom plus two additional adults present in a short-term rental between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., according to the complaint. "These arbitrary caps are in addition to any caps in place for fire and safety purposes and have no rational connection to the public health, safety, or welfare," the homeowners say. The ordinance also requires short-term rental owners and tenants to allow officers to "enter, examine, and survey, at all reasonable times, all buildings, dwelling units, guest rooms, and premises" for the purpose of inspection. "Such home inspections do not require a warrant, exigent circumstances, pre-compliance review, or probable cause," the complaint states, though the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down a similar Los Angeles ordinance, authorizing warrantless "on demand" hotel searches. Austin can levy fines of up to $2,000 per day for violations of the ordinance and can suspend a license for two or more substantiated violations. Property owners share responsibility for their tenants' violations. The complaint says there have been few complaints about short-term rentals in Austin. "Since the initiation of short-term rental licensing regulations in October 2012, the City has issued 0 citations issued for noise, occupancy, trash or other violations of the Austin Municipal Code that are documented to have stemmed from a licensed short-term rental . . . "Of the complaints against licensed STR units, owner-occupied, Type 1 rental units triggered the greatest number of reports -- both in absolute and percentage terms . . . "Furthermore, this small number of complaints has not led to even one occupancy, noise, or 'presence' restriction prosecution," the plaintiffs say. They seek declaratory judgment that the ordinance violates their constitutional rights, and an injunction preventing Austin from enforcing it. Their lead attorney is Robert Henneke, with the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Some critics claim short-term rentals can destabilize neighborhoods. Henneke denied it. "There is no evidence to support the claim that short-term rentals diminish the availability of affordable housing," he said. "This ordinance . . . violates the fundamental constitutional rights of owners and renters who use short-term rentals. "Policy made to address hypothetical situations is bad policy. A subjective desire to know the personal details of one's neighbors does not justify the city's arbitrary restrictions on property rights, setting a bedtime for adults, or doing away with the privacy protections enshrined in the Constitution. This really is an example of the City using a nuclear bomb to address concerns that could be handled with a fly swatter." A spokesman for Austin said: "The Austin City Council spent many hours working through the significant issues related to short-term rentals in the city, in order to best serve all citizens. The city's lawyers are prepared to defend the ordinance in court." ALBERTSONS LLC: "Sims" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 ----------------------------------------------------- Derrick Sims, individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Albertsons, LLC and Supervalu, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10553, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06169 to the proceeding. Albertsons is one of the largest food and drug retailers in the United States. The "Sims" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742 9700 Facsimile: (617) 742 9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Preston W. Leonard, Esq. LEONARD LAW OFFICE, PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 329 1295 E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas W. Allen, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 265 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 449 6505 E-mail: nallen@mccarter.com ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. The case is captioned Hindy Kalmenson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03133 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2016). AllianceOne provides debt collection services and contact center solutions. The Plaintiff appears pro se. AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Faces "Yaakov" Suit in N.D. Ala. ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against American Chemicals Equipment Inc. The case is captioned Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. the Plaintiff v. American Chemicals Equipment Inc. d/b/a Americanosment d/b/a Stockup.com, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00978-JHE (N.D. Ala., June 15, 2016). The Assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. John H England, III. American Chemical is in the business of manufacturing ventilation & aluminum coating process equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry A Ragsdale, Esq. SIROTE & PERMUTT PC 2311 Highland Avenue South P O Box 55727 Birmingham, AL 35255-5727 Telephone: (205) 930 5100 Facsimile: (205) 212 2932 E-mail: bragsdale@sirote.com APPLE INC: "Lusson" Suit Over Fatal IPhone 6 Error Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse news Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco, on June 20 dismissed with leave to amend a class action claiming Apple hid a fatal iPhone 6 error from customers. Lead plaintiff Nicholas Lusson sued Apple in February, claiming it concealed a glitch called "Error 53" that renders the iPhone 6 useless when a user updates a phone or restores it from backup. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found Lusson's second amended complaint lacked specificity to justify claims of negligent misrepresentation, false advertising and unjust enrichment. "The complaint recites a few alleged affirmative misrepresentations, but the complaint doesn't explain how those statements are actually misleading, and doesn't give any detail about how or when the plaintiffs actually relied on them," Chhabria wrote in his June 20 ruling. The judge also found the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that customers lost data, rather than access to their data. Some form of real property loss or physical injury is necessary to seek damages for negligent misrepresentation, Chhabria wrote. Class attorney Darrell Cochran said he was "not surprised" by the ruling, and that "it will be a long process to hold Apple accountable." He said the complaint will be amended. Cochran is with Pfau Cochran Vertetis & Amala in Tacoma, Wash. Apple attorney Matthew Powers, with O'Melveny & Myers, did not return a phone call seeking comment. In April, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed another class action against Apple, claiming an iPhone app automatically switched phones from wireless to cellular data, causing some users to exceed data limits and pay higher phone bills. AT&T SERVICES: Dito et al. May File Fourth Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MARILYN DITO and WENDELL WALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03653-VC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Vince Chhabria allows plaintiffs to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are training professionals employed by defendant, classified as exempt from the overtime requirements. Plaintiffs bring this class action against defendant for the unpaid overtime wages in contrary to the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked by plaintiffs as required under Labor Code Sec. 1174(d), failure to afford proper meal periods as obligated under Labor Code Sec. 226.7 and Wage Order No. 4-2001, Sec. 11(b), and unlawful and unfair business practices. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all questions of fact raised by the Fourth Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint. A copy of Judge Chhabria's June 9, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/v9GSwPfrom Leagle.com. AT&T Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Thomas Campbell -- mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Paul Berkowitz -- pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton LLP & Thomas Roy Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. BADESCU SKIN: Settlement Notice Properly Published, Court Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the settlement of a class-action lawsuit regarding unlabeled steroids in face cream only needed to have its notice published once, a California appeals court ruled. Wankyu Choi and Jae Lee sued Mario Badescu Skin Care Inc., along with Badescu himself, over the labeling and marketing of their Healing Cream. The Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety had recalled the cream in 2012 after tests revealed the presence of two steroids: hydrocortisone and triamcinolone acetonide in the product. According to the ministry, long-term use of steroids could lead to enlarged capillaries and skin atrophy. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted claims of fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty and false advertising. Badescu and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the nationwide class- action lawsuit. More than 30,000 customers received a settlement notice, which was also published nationwide in Parade magazine. The trial court approved the class and certified the settlement in 2014. However, nine class members objected to the settlement. Some of them claimed that the Consumer Legal Remedies Act required four publications of the settlement notice, not just one. Justice Richard Aldrich of the Los Angeles-based California Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that the law requires notice of a settlement to be given "'as the court directs,' thus granting the trial court discretion to fashion notice of a settlement class." He added that it was "infeasible" for the notice to be published, as the law states, in "a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the transaction occurred." "Determining in which counties around the United States sales of the creams occurred in this case would be impossible," he wrote. "Civil Code section 1781 does not appear to govern nationwide consumer class actions." The case captioned, WANKYU CHOI et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents; MARY RESTAINO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MARIO BADESCU SKIN CARE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents., B257480 (Cal. App.). BARRY A. GOLDMAN: Johnson's Class Certification Bid Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Joyce A Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Barry A. Goldman, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04412 (N.D.Ill.), Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn. A status hearing was held before the Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman on June 17, 2016. The Judge ruled that Defendant's oral request to strike document is granted resulting from motion having been filed in error. Another status hearing is set for Aug. 15, 2016, and if the case has not settled, a joint status report is due by the next date. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Finnegan for discovery supervision as well as settlement discussions. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hY7iqDGA BAY AREA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a transit district is allegedly to have not adequately paid its employees overtime wages. Jodi Brunker filed a complaint on behalf of all similarly situated individuals on June 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Bay Area Rapid Transit District alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked for more than 40 hours for the defendant but was not paid any overtime wages. The plaintiff holds Bay Area Rapid Transit District responsible because the defendant allegedly required its employees to work overtime but failed to pay them any overtime compensation at the legal rate as defined by the FLSA. The plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation plus liquidated damages in an equal amount, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by David E. Mastagni, Isaac S. Stevens and Ace T. Tate of Mastagni Holstedt APC in Sacramento. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 3:16-cv-03399-EDL BI INCORPORATED: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- KAREL ALVAREZ and JUAN TELLADO, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BI INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02705-MSG (E.D. Penn., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA), and the Pennsylvania law. Mr. Alvarez works for Defendant as an Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) Case Specialist in New Jersey. BI paid Plaintiffs and Class Members for half an hour of their regular rate each day that they were on call, or $17.14 per day or $120.00 per week (7-day week beginning Monday and ending on Sunday), regardless of the hours actually worked. However, Plaintiffs and Class Members who were required to carry a pager were required to respond but were not compensated for the hours they actually worked. BI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO Group). The GEO Group is a global leader in the delivery of correctional, detention, and residential treatment services to federal, state, and local government agencies. BI offers offender monitoring products and services that help federal, state, and local agencies monitor parolees, probationers, pretrial defendants, and illegal aliens involved in the U.S. immigration court process as they live in the community The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Camille Fundora, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1622 LOCUST ST Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 4656 Facsimile: (215) 875 4674 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net cfundora@bm.net - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. Bruce Ludwig, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656 3600 Facsimile: (215) 567 2310 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com bludwig@wwdlaw.com BLOUNT COUNTY JAIL: Pro Se Action Tossed, Plaintiff Must Pay $400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, INMATES OF BLOUNT COUNTY JAIL and RUDOLPH M. BROOKS, Plaintiffs, v. BLOUNT COUNTY, JAMES BERRONG, and C/O DALMEN, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-01171-JSW (LB) (E.D. Tenn.), District Judge Pamela L. Reeves of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed Plaintiff's complaint and directed him to pay the full filing fee. Plaintiff Rudolph M. Brooks filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Section 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA). Before he filed his complaint in the case, Plaintiff had filed, while incarcerated, at least five civil actions which were dismissed for failure to state a claim. In her Memorandum and Order dated June 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/KN19lV from Leagle.com, Judge Reeves concluded that Plaintiff's complaint does not allege that he is any imminent danger of physical injury. Plaintiff is directed to prepay the entire $400 filing fee in order to file the action. BLUE SKY: Settlement Reached with Animators ------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Jose, June 23 appeared inclined to approve class settlements between Sony Pictures and another studio and their animation and visual effects workers. Sony Pictures and Blue Sky Studios agreed to settle with the employees who claimed that seven major studios conspired to suppress their wages. Sony and Blue Sky have agreed to settle the cases for $13 million and $5.9 million respectively. Other studios, including Pixar, Dreamworks, Lucasfilm, Disney and ImageMovers Digital, continue to fight the case. Lead plaintiffs Robert Nitsch, Georgia Cano and David Wentworth stand to receive $10,000 as a part of the settlement with Blue Sky; their entitlement relative to Sony was not stipulated. Of the approximately 10,000 class members in line for a payday, 2,038 have worked at Sony and 578 have worked at Blue Sky, according to their attorney Brent Johnson. The recovery for each of the class members averages $1,026. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh had a few technicalities she wanted corrected, including putting the burden on the plaintiffs' attorneys to inform their clients of the process and any major changes to the settlement schedule. The settlement as constructed urges people with questions to visit the court clerk's office. Koh didn't see the point. "What can they expect to get when they come to the court?" Koh asked. "I don't see how the intake folks working in the clerk's office are going to be able to assist class members." The plaintiffs agreed to strike that language and provide their phone number in its stead. Aside from a few other details it appeared everything was in order for Koh to issue the approval in coming weeks. Nitsch's September 2014 lawsuit claims major animation studios colluded to fix wages and restrict career opportunities for artists. Nitsch, who was a senior character effects artist for DreamWorks and a clothes and hair technical director at Sony Pictures Imageworks, says animation and special effects studios -- including Walt Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and Lucasfilm, Sony Pictures, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers -- conspired to stifle wages and restrict career opportunities for animators, digital artists, software engineers and other technical workers. The lawsuit mirrors a class action filed against Apple, Google and others in 2010, which claimed their CEOs made "gentleman's agreements" to restrict competition, and companion wage-setting mechanisms, by not poaching each other's employees. Pixar and Lucasfilm settled for $9 million collectively last year, but Koh has rejected a $325 million agreement proposed by Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe in that case. Nitsch claims the animation studios acted in much the same way as the tech companies, conspiring to deprive artists of "millions of dollars which defendants instead put to their bottom lines." His lawsuit continues: "It did so at the same time the films produced by these workers achieved world renown and generated billions in the United States and abroad." Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when Apple founder Steve Jobs bought Lucasfilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in 1986 and created Pixar. Nitsch says Jobs, Lucas and Pixar president Ed Catmull agreed not to cold-call each other's employees. Neither Lucas, Catmull nor Apple are defendants in Nitsch's complaint. He claims Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to notify each other when making an offer to an employee, and agreed not to offer higher pay if the employer made a counteroffer. He says Jobs and Catmull spread this kind of anti-competitive agreement throughout the animation industry. Whenever a studio threatened to disturb the conspiracy's goals of suppressing wages and salaries by recruiting employees and offering better compensation, the leaders of the conspiracy took steps to stop them," the complaint states. The artists say the studios' cooperation was so thorough they emailed each other salary and budget information. Nitsch quotes Lucas as saying that "the rule we always had [was] we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we don't have the margins for that sort of thing." The other studios used similar practices and pay structures, Nitsch says. Blue Sky is a computer animation film studio based in Connecticut. It is famous for making the films "Ice Age," "Rio" and "The Peanuts Movie." Sony Pictures Animation has a few high-profile films under its belt, including "Open Season," "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," "The Smurfs" and "Hotel Transylvania. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- Four class action lawsuits have been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District. The lawsuits seek 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 violations of the Connecticut Products Liability Act. According to the complaints, 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 four cases are: -- LOIS SOKOL, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants. Plaintiff's Counsel: 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 - Roopal P. Luhana, Esq. CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP 600 Third Ave., 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 347-269-4472 Facsimile: 888-499-1123 E-mail: luhana@chaffinluhana.com -- PATRICIA AVERY, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16- 6069085-S (June 15, 2016). Plaintiff's Counsel: 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 -- FRANK CASEY, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants. Plaintiff's Counsel: 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 -- JEANNE NEGRON, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16- 6069084-S (June 15, 2016). Plaintiff's Counsel: 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 BOGALUSA CITY: Roberts Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT, LATASHA COOK and ROBERT LEVI, the Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT J. BLACK, and BOGALUSA CITY COURT, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-11024- ILRL-MBN (E.D. La), asks the Court to certify the following Class and Subclass, respectively: The Structural Bias Equitable Class: All individuals who will appear in the Bogalusa City Court for criminal cases or who have unpaid fines and costs assessed by and owed to the City Court; and The Pay Date Equitable Subclass: All individuals who were or will be adjudicated guilty in the Bogalusa City Court, who have been or will be given a future date by which to return to City Court, and who have not paid the assessed fines and costs in full prior to returning to City Court. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RpGsiuZ5 The Plaintiff is represented by: Ivy Wang, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 228 7279 Facsimile: (504) 486 8947 E-mail: ivy.wang@splcenter.org - and - Micah West, Esq. Samuel Brooke, Esq. Emily Early, Esq. Sara Zampierin, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone:(334) 956 8200 Facsimile:(334) 956 8481 E-mail: micah.west@splcenter.org samuel.brooke@splcenter.org emily.early@splcenter.org sara.zampierin@splcenter.org CALIFORNIA, USA: Berndt Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Martha Berndt filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Martha Berndt, et al. v. CDC, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-03174-NJV, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The appellate case is captioned as Martha Berndt, et al. v. CDC, et al., Case No. 16-16079, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant Martha Berndt, and Plaintiffs The Estate of Judy Kay Longo, Marta Hastings, Sophia Curry, Shelly Adcock, Patricia Moreira, Karen Currie, Lisa R. Boyd, Kimberley Morin and Raissa Jeffries are represented by: John L. Burris, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 7677 Oakport Street Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 839-5200 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 E-mail: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com - and - Pamela Y. Price, Esq. PRICE & ASSOCIATES 1611 Telegraph Ave. Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 452-0292 Facsimile: (510) 452-5625 E-mail: pamela.price@pypesq.com - and - Charles Stephen Ralston, Esq. P.O. Box 1143 Mi Wuk Village, CA 95346-1143 Telephone: (209) 586-2370 Facsimile: (209) 729-5800 E-mail: csralston@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees California Department of Corrections, D. Skerik, Teresa Schwartz, Joseph McGrath and Dwight W. Winslow are represented by: Lyn Harlan, Esq. Christopher Michael Young, Esq. AGCA - OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1515 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Telephone: (510) 622-2208 Facsimile: (510) 622-2270 E-mail: Lyn.Harlan@doj.ca.gov chris.young@doj.ca.gov CARRCO PAINTING: "Sandoval Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR SANDOVAL, and Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARRCO PAINTING CONTRACTORS, the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv- 00159-RAJ (W.D. Tex., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, Sandoval is an employee of Carrco and his primary duties include painting. Carrco assigned Sandoval to work long hours, often more than 65 hours in a single week. Although Carrco knew Sandoval worked far in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, it failed to pay him overtime as required by federal law. Carrco allegedly attempts to deceive their employees and/or circumvent the law by drafting two different paychecks for a single work week. Carrco is a professional painting service with more than 20 years of experience. It focuses on providing qualified painting services to educational, commercial, retail and corporate sector of construction. Carrco routinely uses computers, copiers, telephones, paint, painting equipment, and construction equipment that was produced for and moved in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeralynn Manor, Esq. THE MANOR LAW FIRM PC 1730 Jefferson Ste. 218 Houston, TX 77004 Telephone: (713) 225 2667 Facsimile: (832) 778 8112 E-mail: jmanor@manorlaw.net CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Olsen Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER OLSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-2520-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), asks the court to certify the following class and subclass, respectively: Consumer Debtor Class: all Florida consumers to whom Defendant sent the Form Letters, or a letter in similar form, substance, or improper purpose as the Form Letters, in an attempt to "settle" a consumer debt without advising of the time-barred nature of the debt, in violation of the FDCPA within a one-year period of time prior to the filing of the original Complaint on October 23, 2015, up through and including the present date. Consumer Debtor Sub-Class: all consumer debtors who were part of the class and who incurred out-of-pocket expenses, including but not limited to, full or partial payments to Defendant in response to the amount allegedly owed to Defendant, as well as attorneys' fees or costs in responding to Defendant's Form Letters during the Class Period. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0EI5KzRK The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian R. Leavengood, Esq. J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. Aaron M. Swift, Esq. Gregory H. Lercher, Esq. LEAVENLAW 3900 First Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, FL 33703 Telephone: (727) 327 3328 Facsimile: (727) 327 3305 E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com aswift@leavenlaw.com glercher@leavenlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher P. Hahn, Esq. Don Maurice, Esq. Maurice Wutscher, LLP 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: chahn@MauriceWutscher.com dmaruice@MauriceWutscher.com litigation@MauriceWutscher.com CHAMPLAIN VALLEY: $282,500 Settlement of Marroquin Suit Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order in the class action lawsuit captioned JUAN RAMON MARROQUIN ALAS; MARINA BALTAZAR; CLARA ESTELA FUENTES LUX; VICTOR MARROQUIN; MIGUEL PEREZ ORTIZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHAMPLAIN VALLEY SPECIALTY OF NEW YORK, INC.; JEREMY DYGERT; RUTHANNE DYGERT; CHRISTOPHER COTY; and RACHEL DYGERT COTY, the Defendants, Case 5:15-cv-00441-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement, certification of settlement class, approval of the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, and award of attorney fees and costs. The Certified Class consists of: All persons who were/are employed by Champlain Valley Specialty of New York, Inc., as hourly food processing employees at its apple-slice processing facility in Oswego, New York, and/or in similar positions for the period of April 18, 2009, to the date of this Order. Defendants have agreed to pay up to $282,500 to resolve and satisfy any claim for attorneys fees and costs approved by the Court, any and all amounts to be paid to class members, any court- approved enhancement payment to Plaintiffs, all claims administration costs to the claims administrator and the employer's share of payroll taxes including the employer's share of the FICA tax and any federal and state unemployment tax due. The Court further orders that: Dahl Administration, LLC, the Class Administrator provided adequate notice and Class Members had adequate opportunity to opt- out. Class Members who have not opted out by the date of this order are bound by the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release entered into by the parties to this action. Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees in the amount of $90,000 and costs in the amount of $6,504 is granted. The claims administration expenses are to be paid to Dahl Administrators in the amount of $8,720. Payment to Class Members who have submitted claims forms are to be paid in the amounts determined by the Claims Administrator in accordance with the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release entered into by the parties to this action. Payment of $1500, as a Plaintiffs' enhancement, is to be paid to each of the named Plaintiffs and Class Representatives to this action. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tgNCXv4J The Plaintiffs are represented by: Teague P. Paterson, Esq. Dalisai S. Nisperos, Esq. BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC 217 South Salina Street, Suite 600 Syracuse, NY 13202 E-mail: tpaterson@beesontayer.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen Louis Sheinfeld, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP New York Office 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 E-mail: ssheinfeld@winston.com CHIASMA INC: August 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on June 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Chiasma, Inc. ("Chiasma" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CHMA). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between July 15, 2015 and April 17, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the August 8, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased shares of Chiasma during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. According to the complaint, the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements about the Company's business during the Class Period. The Company failed to disclose that the Phase 3 clinical trial for its oral octreotide, Mycapssa, which was conducted before the July 15, 2015 IPO, was insufficient to prove efficacy and secure FDA approval. Also Chiasma's supervision of its suppliers was not sufficient enough to prevent deficiencies that delayed FDA approval of Mycapssa. On April 18, 2016 the Company announced that the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter in response to the Company's New Drug Application for Mycapssa stating that the FDA did not believe the application provided sufficient evidence of efficacy to warrant approval and another clinical trial would be necessary, and that deficiencies with the Company's suppliers would need to be resolved. When Chiasma announced this news on April 18, 2016 the share price fell 63.13% on that day. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com CHICAGO MERCANTILE: "Walsh" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WALSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE INC., and CME GROUP INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06224 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover earned shift differential pay and full amount of overtime wages and other contractually mandated wages against the Defendants, under the Fair Labor Standards Acts (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA). The Defendants allegedly did not compensate Plaintiff at a rate of one and one half times his "regular hourly rate of pay" for times he worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks. The unpaid overtime wages due to the Defendants' failure to include the Plaintiff's shift differential pay in his regular hourly rate exceeded $1,200 in 2011; $800 in 2012; $800 in 2013; $900 in 2014; $1,200 in 2015 and $600 in 2016. The Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendants as follow: A. A judgment in the amount of all back wages due as provided by the IWPCA; B. Prejudgment interest on the unlawful deductions and punitive damages; C. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; and D. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Chicago Mercantile is a Delaware corporation and it operates a stock exchange in Chicago, which provides futures contracts and options on futures for its financial products such as interest rates, stock indexes, foreign exchange, and commodities and it also provides electronic trading floor and an electronic trading platform. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Shim, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL SHIM 3501 Algonquin Road, Suite 600 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 427 0033 E-mail: sshim.law@gmail.com, rosabaekim.esq@gmail.com CIVIL DEMAND: Motion to Dismiss "Lee" Appeal Denied --------------------------------------------------- Associate Justice David A. Thompson of the California Court of Appeals reversed a judgment granting special motion to strike and then denied a motion to dismiss the appeal in the case captioned, CODY LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CIVIL DEMAND ASSOCIATES, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. G051868 (Cal. App.). In early February 2013, plaintiff was terminated from his cashier job at Knott's Berry Farm for giving sodas to a coworker, eating parts of a churro, and taking about $15 in loose change. Neal C. Tenen, who is a lawyer, had a contract with Knott's Berry Farm to send demand letters "in an attempt to settle potential civil claims" against former employees terminated for theft. Tenen owns part of CDA, which acted as Tenen's agent in connection with the collection efforts. Plaintiff filed the action against Tenen and CDA for extortion, defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, fraud, and negligence. Plaintiff sought, among other things, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and a declaration that no court had found he had violated Penal Code section 490.5. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, removing all causes of action except the extortion claim. In substance, the extortion cause of action was the same as the one in the original complaint, although plaintiff removed some of the original allegations. Defendants then each filed a second anti-SLAPP motion. This time they attached copies of the two letters to Tenen's declaration. The court granted these motions. It ruled the two letters did not contain any implied threat and were not extortionist. The court further ruled that a demand letter is activity protected under section 425.16 and thus defendants had satisfied their burden. On appeal, plaintiff argues the statements at issue were not protected under the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, Sec. 47, subd. (b) section 47(b)) and were extortionist and thus not protected activity under section 425.16. He also argues defendants did not have the right to bring a second anti-SLAPP motion because the first amended complaint did not make a new substantive change. Further, he asserts the putative class action is exempt from an anti-SLAPP motion. In his Opinion dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/T08sXW from Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that there is no evidence defendants even threatened to pursue legal remedies and that there is no evidence defendants even threatened to pursue legal remedies. Cody Lee is represented by Stephen J. Simoni, Esq. -- StephenSimoniLAW@Gmail.com -- SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES Civil Demand Associates, Inc. is represented by Todd W. Goodman, Esq. -- law@toddgoodman.com -- TODD W. GOODMAN, APC CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANETH JIMENEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 653161/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and the other members of the Class the minimum wage rate established by law, appropriate overtime compensation, and the spread of hours pay to which Plaintiffs and the other Class members were entitled. The Defendant was enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. The case defined the Class as: All individuals employed by Defendant as Personal Assistants at any time since March 1, 2012 in New York City and at any time since March 1, 2013 in Westchester, Nassau, and/or Suffolk counties. The Plaintiff is a home care aid (Personal Assistant) employed by Defendant, a not-for-profit enterprise that employs thousands of Personal Assistants to administer care to elderly and disabled individuals in the State of New York (Consumers) through the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP). CDPAP is a statewide Medicaid program that provides an alternative to more traditional home health care service models in which the consumers have little or no control The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. Robert Abrams, Esq. Correy A. Kamin, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545 4600 Facsimile: (212) 686 0114 E-mail: smith@whafh.com abrams@whafh.com kamin@whafh.com CPI CARD: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Falsified Public Stock Offering --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY VANCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CPI CARD GROUP INC., STEVEN MONTROSS, DAVID BRUSH, JERRY DREILING, BRADLEY SEAMAN, NICHOLAS PETERS, ROBERT PEARCE, DAVID ROWNTREE, TRICOR PACIFIC CAPITAL PARTNERS (FUND IV), LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TRICOR PACIFIC CAPITAL PARTNERS (FUND IV) US, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TRICOR PACIFIC CAPITAL, INC., BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., CIBC WORLD MARKETS INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC. and GRIFFITHS MCBURNEY CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04531 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), in connection with CPI's October 8, 2015 initial public stock offering (IPO). On or about May 14, 2015, CPI filed with the SEC its registration statement on Form S-1, which, following several amendments made in response to comments received from the SEC and being declared effective by the SEC on October 8, 2015, would later be utilized for the IPO (Registration Statement). On or about October 8, 2015, one week after EMV Liability Shift went into effect in the U.S., CPI and the Underwriter Defendants priced the IPO at $10 per share. On October 9, 2015, they filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the common stock IPO (Prospectus), which forms part of the Registration Statement, and sold 17.25 million shares of CPI common stock to the investing public, 15 million of which CPI issued and sold and another 2.25 million which were sold by certain "Selling Stockholders", including Defendants Montross, Pearce and the Tricor Funds. The Plaintiff alleged that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. CPI, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the design, production, data personalization, packaging, and fulfillment of financial payment cards. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367 7100 Facsimile: (631) 367 1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230 0063 Facsimile: (619) 255 1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com scotth@johnsonandweaver.com CROATIA: Status Hearing in "Lalich" Holocaust Suit on Aug. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on June 27, 2016, in the case entitled Lizabeth Lalich, et al. v. Republic of Croatia, Case No. 1:16-cv-05712 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. The minute entry states that the Plaintiffs' placeholder motion for class certification is entered and continued generally. Initial status hearing is set for August 31, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lqWwmizi As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 13, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a placeholder motion for certification of this class: All survivors, heirs, and next of kin, of persons of Jewish, Serbian, or Roma descent who were the victims of the Croatian Holocaust, and who (a) reside in the United States, or (b) are U.S. citizens residing abroad. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as the Class representatives, and their counsel as Class counsel. They further ask the Court to award the Plaintiff Class the sum of $3.5 billion minus a contingency fee of 20% for the Class's attorneys for conceiving, initiating, pleading, and arguing this case on behalf of the Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rMrdFoog The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony D'Amato, Esq. 5807 Lake Shore Drive Holland, MI 49424 Telephone: (616)-399-6344 E-mail: a-damato@northwestern.edu - and - Aaron Ross Walner, Esq. THE WALNER LAW FIRM 555 Skokie BLVD. suite 250 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (312) 201-1616 E-mail: awalner@walnerlawfirm.com DAIRY AMERICA: Bids to Reconsider May 2 Order in "Carlin" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI AND BRIAN WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRY AMERICA, INC. and CAIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, No. 1:09-cv-0430 AWI GSA (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied the motions filed by both defendant parties, DairyAmerica, Inc. and California Dairies, Inc. for reconsideration of the court's order of May 2, 2016, granting in part and denying in part motions by both parties to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint of the plaintiffs, Gerald Carlin, et al. A full-text copy of Judge Ishii's June 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/0h6cNB from Leagle.com. Gerald Carlin, John Rahm, Paul Rozwadowski, Diana Wolfe, Plaintiffs, represented by Aidan Chowning Poppler -- cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg -- claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,George F. Farah -- gfarah@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif -- jsaif@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice. DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, E. John Steren -- ejsteren@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice, Joseph Michael Marchini -- jmarchini@bakermanock.com -- Baker, Manock & Jensen, Wendy M. Yoviene -- wyovienne@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice, Allison Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia -- sanjaynangia@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence Michael Cirelli -- lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett, Shannon Marie Nessier -- snessier@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP & Megan Oliver Thompson -- moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP. James Rehberg, Ronald Hayek, Michael K. Schugg, ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by J. Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP. Timothy L. Rawlings, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark A. Griffin -- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice & Raymond J. Farrow -- rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice. DELOITTE & TOUCHE: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Buttonwood Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed an order dismissing an amended class action. The appellate case is captioned, BUTTONWOOD TREE VALUE PARTNERS, L.P.; JOHN SORRELLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JACK A. SWEENEY; STEVEN J. SWEENEY; MARILYN J. SWEENEY; GARY M. HORGAN; H. ANTHONY GARTSHORE; ELIZABETH THOMPSON; FRED M. EDWARDS; THOMAS E. MCCULLOGH; RICHARD SCHRIEBER; LAWRENCE J. SHERMAN, Defendants, and DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-56267 (9th Cir.) Plaintiffs' third amended class action alleges Deloitte & Touche's violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. However, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err by dismissing the case for plaintiffs' failure to plead scienter. In pleading securities fraud against an outside auditor, the Ninth Circuit says a plaintiff is required to allege that the accounting practices were so deficient that the audit amounted to no audit at all, or an egregious refusal to see the obvious. A copy of the decision dated June 22, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/MVrgsgfrom Leagle.com. DEPENDABLE COMPANIES: "Winters" Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Julius Ray Winters, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Dependable Companies a business entity form unknown; Dependable Distribution Centers, a business entity form unknown; Dependable Highway Express, Inc., California corporation; Citistaff Solutions, a California corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC623839 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal periods, penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been paid, during the relevant liability periods, wages for all time worked, including overtime wages, as a result of, including but not limited to, improperly rounding time worked by their employees. The Defendants allegedly have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees or former employees within the State of California a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked more than five 8-hours in a workday and a second 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked in excess often 10 hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation for such un-provided meal periods. Dependable Companies, a business entity form unknown, is a full service logistics provider. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553 3600 Facsimile: (310) 553 3603 DICRETE WIRELESS: "Walker" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua J. Walker, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Discrete Wireless, Inc., doing business as: NEXTRAQ; Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC, doing business as: NEXTRAQ; and Fleetcor Technologies, Inc., doing business as: NEXTRAQ, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02003-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation in amounts to be determined at trial, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, costs, injunctive relief, and other compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully misclassified the class of inside sales representatives as exempt from the overtime wages provision of the FLSA. The Plaintiff, and the class of similarly situated employees, were all paid a base salary and commission and bonus structure. However, these employees fail the administrative exemption as their primary job duty does not involve the use of discretion and independent judgment related to the management of the company. After Fleetcor Technologies, Inc., purchased Nextraq, the Defendants instituted a policy switching all inside sales reps to hourly nonexempt employees and told them not to clock in more than 40 hours per week after recognizing the lack of exemption under FLSA for the position. However, the Defendants allegedly refused to address or pay the employees the overtime wages owed for the preceeding 2-3 year period of time. NexTraq is a fleet tracking company based in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Acquired by Francisco Partners in 2009, NexTraq is a provider of Global Positioning System vehicle management and fleet tracking solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A. 1201 Peachtree Street, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (813) 639 9366 Facsimile: (813) 639 9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com DUPONT: Awaits Decision on $4MM Smelter Settlement Surplus ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt Harvey, writing for The Exponent Telegram, reports that a hearing on what to do with about $4 million not used in the DuPont Spelter/smelter lawsuit home and land cleanup was set for 8:30 a.m. on June 22 before Harrison Chief Judge Thomas A. Bedell. Judge Bedell was set to hear from some of the 1,000 families that were part of the property cleanup area, including some from the 750 families that actually participated by having homes and land cleaned of toxic chemicals. Multiple options are on the table, but both Claims Administrator Ed Gentle and his local counsel, Morgantown civil litigation attorney Michael Jacks of Jacks Legal Group, favor distributing the money among the families. The judge isn't bound by that. In some class actions, as Mr. Gentle and others have pointed out in scholarly articles, judges opted to distribute surplus money among local charities. But in those cases, it would have cost almost as much or more to mail the claim check than what it was worth. Additionally, as Mr. Gentle indicates in an Alabama Law Review article about class action surplus distribution in general, the courts must step carefully in this area of law due to the potential of undermining the class action process. The money comes from the class action in which DuPont eventually agreed to pay about $35 million for property and home cleanup near its old Spelter smelter. The cleanup effort focused on elements such as cadmium and lead that were produced through the zinc smelting process and have been linked to cancer. DuPont funded medical monitoring for residents in the smelter area, but that's separate from the property cleanup. Mr. Gentle attributes part of the property cleanup surplus on a detailed bidding process and a disciplined effort to keep costs in check. Additionally, the 250 families that opted against having the cleanup done played a part in creating a surplus. The court will review the results of a survey that was mailed to property cleanup participants in addition to possibly hearing from as many as 40 or 50 individuals, according to Gentle. The judge has multiple options on the table. To name a few: He could divide the $4 million evenly among all 1,000, for a check of about $1,000 each; he could divide it among the 750 families that chose to participate, for a check of about $5,330 each; or he could award those in the zone closest to the plant, where the most pollution was said to have occurred, a higher percentage and then distribute what's left equally. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Stamer Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit entitled DAVID STAMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05578 (N.D. Ill.), asks Court to certify a Class with respect to his Complaint, filed on May 2, 2016, which seeks relief from Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly the Class consists of: (1) all persons within the United States (2) who, on or after July 1, 2011 (3) received a non-emergency telephone call from Defendant to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and (4) where Defendant's records do not show that the person provided the number to the defendant or the original creditor (for example, where the number was obtained through skip tracing or captured by the defendant's equipment from an inbound call). Plaintiff further requests that he be named as class representative and his lawyers be appointed counsel for the class. Mr. Stamer brought this class action complaint against the Defendant to stop their practice of making unauthorized automated telephone calls to cellular telephones. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nV3JT0l6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Meier, Esq. MEIER LLC 53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 304 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 242 1849 Facsimile: (312) 242-1841 E-mail: richard@meierllc.com - and - Shannon M. Geier, Esq. GEIER LAW LLC 910 W. Van Buren St., Suite 2S Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 837 3006 Facsimile: (312) 829 3729 E-mail: sgeier@geierlawfirm.com EARTH INC: Class Action Settlement in "Hedges" Suit Approved ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber entered an order in the action lawsuit captioned Leslie Hedges, the Plaintiff, v. Earth, Inc., the Defendant, Case: 1:14-cv-09858 (N.D. Ill.), granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mAvLisMs EDUCATION CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in "Reyes" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, AJ REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-00628-BAS-JMA (S.D. Cal.). On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff AJ Reyes commenced the putative class action against Defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code Sec. 630 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently and willfully violated the TCPA when it placed an unsolicited call to Plaintiff's cell phone via an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) on February 5, 2015, without Plaintiff's prior express consent. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the CIPA when it recorded two private telephone conversations between Plaintiff and Defendant's representatives on February 5, 2015, without Plaintiff's consent. In the motion, Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff expressly consented to Defendant calling his cell phone using an ATDS before Defendant called Plaintiff on February 5, 2015; and (2) Defendant adequately advised Plaintiff of its intent to record his calls by using an automated recording advisement at the beginning of each call. In response, Plaintiff argues that (1) he refused consent to receive calls to his cell phone during a May 10, 2013 phone conversation with Defendant's representative; and (2) he did not hear a recording advisement immediately prior to his recorded conversations with Defendant's representatives on February 5, 2015. In her Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/eU7QFT from Leagle.com, Judge Bashant granted summary Defendant's summary judgment as to Plaintiff's TCPA claim finding that there is no genuine dispute that ECMC had prior express consent before placing the February 5, 2015 call, and denied as to CIPA claims finding that Plaintiff consented to the recordings is a genuine issue for trial. A J Reyes is represented by Alexis M. Wood, Esq. -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. -- kas@consumersadvocates.com -- and -- Ronald Marron, Esq. -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON -- and - - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. -- DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com -- LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY Educational Credit Management Corporation is represented by David J. Kaminski, Esq. -- KaminskiD@cmtlaw.com -- and Martin Schannong, Esq. -- schannom@cmtlaw.com -- CARLSON & MESSER LLP F-19 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted defendants F-19 Holdings, LLC's and Fitness 19 KY 185, LLC's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, ANWAR K. MALIK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. F-19 HOLDINGS, LLC, FITNESS 19 KY 185, LLC, and CALLFIRE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:15-130-KKC (E.D. Ky.). Plaintiff Anwar K. Malik asserts that the defendants sent unsolicited, non-emergency text messages to his cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. He files this action as a class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals across the United States. Malik alleges that the Fitness 19 defendants embarked on a marketing campaign that involved sending unsolicited text messages to individuals urging them to purchase Fitness 19 goods and services. He alleges that they hired the third defendant in this action -- CallFire, Inc. -- to assist them. Malik alleges that CallFire provided the Fitness 19 defendants with software enabling them to "blast text messages to thousands of telephone numbers simultaneously." Malik alleges that the defendants failed to obtain the recipients' express consent in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1). In the motion, the Fitness 19 defendants argue that Malik agreed to arbitrate the matter and, thus, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4, the Court must compel Malik to arbitrate the claims against them. In her Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/4bVqWd from Leagle.com, Judge Caldwell held that upon review of the agreement, it is determined that the TCPA claims fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration clause. Anwar K. Malik is represented by Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq. Jonathan K. Kurtz, Esq. -- jonathan.kurtz.law.@gmail.com -- and Kelly P. Spencer, Esq. -- kelly.spencer.law@gmail.com -- SPENCER LAW GROUP F-19 Holdings, LLC and Fitness 19 KY 185, LLC are represented by Alex Rodger, Esq. -- arodger@bgdlegal.com -- Daniel J. Donnellon, Esq. -- DDonnellon@bgdlegal.com -- and Andrea Lauren Russow Nichols, Esq. -- lnichols@bgdlegal.com -- BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP FANNIE MAE: Faces "Bailey" Suit in Wash D.C. -------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against the Federal National Mortgage Association. The case is captioned GRANT D. BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION/FANNIE MAE DBA FANNIE MAE CONSUMER RESOURCE CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. #: 1:16-cv-01155 (D.C. (Wash), June 15, 2016). Fannie Mae, the leading source of liquidity for housing in America, helps ensure creditworthy borrowers can access mortgage credit in all market conditions. FANNIE MAE: Class Action Plaintiffs' New Briefs Due on July 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- John Carney, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a federal appeals panel has more questions for some of the plaintiffs in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac litigation. At the very least, this suggests that a decision in the case is not imminent. The United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit on June 21 ordered the class action plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefs addressing a series of questions about the role of sovereign immunity in the case. The class action plaintiffs are investors in the common and junior preferred shares of Fannie and Freddie. They are represented by Boies, Shiller & Flexner, LLP, the law firm that last year won a high-profile lawsuit contesting the terms of the bailout of American International Group. In the order, the court instructed the class action plaintiffs to answer the following questions: 1. Regarding the class plaintiffs' claim against Treasury for breach of fiduciary duty, is there a grant of subject matter jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity that is not the Federal Tort Claims Act? 2. Regarding all the class plaintiffs' other claims: a. Is each defendant subject to suit absent a waiver of sovereign immunity and, if not, is there such a waiver? The answer to this question should include a discussion of whether the FHFA's challenged actions were taken solely in the agency's capacity as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or whether they were taken in whole or in part in a regulatory capacity. b. What is the source of subject matter jurisdiction over the claims? Under U.S. law, the federal government cannot be sued for money damages unless a law waives its sovereign immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity in certain cases where a private individual could be held liable in similar circumstances. Fannie and Freddie were placed into conservatorship under the supervision of the Federal Housing Finance Authority in 2008. The U.S. Treasury provided $187.5 billion in rescue funding and agreed to provide hundreds of billions more in exchange for senior preferred shares in both companies as well as warrants for just under 80% of their common equity. The senior preferred shares originally paid a fixed 10% dividend. This was changed 2012 to a variable dividend, effectively meaning they are required to pay all profits to Treasury but owe no dividends when they suffer a loss. Investors have sued in both state and federal court over the change, arguing that they have been unfairly cut off from the profits of the companies. The D.C. Circuit panel is considering the appeal of a trial court's dismissal of some of those suits, including those filed by the class action plaintiffs as well as individual suits filed by Perry Capital, LLC, Fairholme Funds, Inc. and Arrowood Indemnity Company. Those cases were dismissed in 2014 when a judge interpreted the 2008 law governing Fannie and Freddie's conservatorships as denying federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over the challenges. While the questions from the court do not necessarily indicate which way it is leaning in the case, there are hints. Most notably, the questions are directed at the class action plaintiffs and not the individual plaintiffs. This could mean that the court is not inclined to accept the demands for injunctive relief -- namely, the reversal of the 2012 change to the bailout terms -- that were emphasized in their briefs. The questions may also suggest that the court has not found any of the previous claims for jurisdiction persuasive. That is to say, the court may be leaning toward agreeing with the trial court that the 2008 law does operate to deny jurisdiction. That hardly guarantees a government win. After all, the court is allowing the class action a chance to argue that other laws may give courts jurisdiction. One possibility is that the court is more open to the idea that the government could be liable for monetary damages while enjoying immunity to injunctive relief. New briefs are due from the class action plaintiffs on July 1. The government has until July 8 to respond. A final reply briefs from the plaintiffs is due July 15. FELT & LUKES: Rumpel Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in in the class action lawsuit styled DENNIS RUMPEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FELT & LUKES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-751 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the court to certify the class described in the complaint, and further requests that this Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=at5MO6kC The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Gearshift -------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Jeep Grand Cherokee owners sued Fiat Chrysler in a class action in Sacramento, June 23, over the defective gearshift believed to have caused the death of "Star Trek" actor Anton Yelchin. Lead plaintiff Deryl Wall claims that FCA -- Fiat Chrysler Automobiles -- knew about but failed to fix the defectively designed gearshift that has been linked to hundreds of driverless rollaway incidents. The gist of the lawsuit is that the gearshift can cause drivers to believe the car is in park, though it is not. Despite its claim to put "safety first," Fiat Chrysler "put style and profits first, and as a result there have been hundreds of accidents, dozens of injuries, and likely the death of a young, talented actor," the complaint states. The affected vehicles include 2012-14 Dodge Chargers and Chryslers 300s, and 2014-15 Jeep Grand Cherokees. Chrysler recalled more than 1.1 million of the vehicles in April after it found that the gearshift could cause accidents. Whereas most vehicles have a gearshift that causes a stationary car to remain stationary unless a driver wants the car to move, these vehicles use an electronic mechanism that never actually shifts into any gear, but stays in a central location after being engaged, the lawsuit says. The confusing gear selector leads drivers to believe that the vehicle is in park when it is not, which can result in a vehicle rolling away and injuring or killing someone, as is believed to have happened to Yelchin, the plaintiffs say. Steve Berman, whose firm filed the lawsuit, said the gearshift is dangerous because "it does not have a safety override that automatically puts the car in 'park' if the driver's door is opened and pressure taken off the foot brake." "In making these vehicles, Fiat Chrysler failed at adequately and responsibly designing one of the most basic safety features -- the gear shifter," Berman said. In its recall, Chrysler said the problem stemmed from driver error: drivers leaving their cars without selecting "park," despite warning chimes and alert messages if the driver-side door is opened while the engine is running and "park" is not engaged. An "investigation suggested that these measures may be insufficient to deter some drivers from exiting their vehicles without selecting 'PARK,' so FCA will enhance the warnings and transmission-shift strategy on these vehicles," the automaker said at the time of the recall. The problem made national headlines when 27-year-old Yelchin, best known for playing Chekhov in "Star Trek," was crushed by his Jeep outside his Los Angeles home on June 19. Police said the actor's Jeep rolled down his driveway and pinned him against a mailbox pillar in front of his home. Yelchin's vehicle was among those subject to the recall. More than 300 other accidents connected to the defective gearshift have been reported, the lawsuit states. Despite Fiat Chrysler's initiation of the voluntary recall, it only sent a warning letter to owners describing the design defect and has yet to actually fix the problem, according to the complaint. "FCA's unreasonable delay in fixing the defect and its warning letter was obviously too little, too late for Mr. Yelchin, and nearly a million defective shifter vehicles remain in unsuspecting owners' driveways and garages," the complaint states. Fiat Chrysler said June 22, that it has a fix and it will begin notifying owners about scheduling software upgrades. The automaker originally estimated that a remedy for the shifters would be available in July or August. The automaker's Maserati brand has recalled 13,000 vehicles for similar issues. The recall affects certain 2014 model Maserati Quattroporte and Bhibli vehicles. The company said in documents filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it had not received any complaints from Maserati drivers, nor any reports of rollaways in the affected models. A Fiat Chrysler spokesman told Courthouse News the company cannot comment because it has not yet been served with the complaint. FIELD ASSET: Trial in "Bowerman" Case to Begin May 2017 ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California overruled Plaintiffs' general objections to the Vendor Questionnaire process in the case captioned, FRED BOWERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-00057-WHO (N.D. Cal.). On May 16, 2016, the parties filed the fifth in a series of discovery letter briefs regarding their continuing dispute over the scope of discovery in the case, particularly from absent class members. The letter focuses on the content of the Vendor Questionnaire (VQ) to be mailed to some subset of the vendors to whom the class notice was sent. Plaintiffs' concern that the VQ process will transform the Rule 23(b)(3) class action into an "opt-in class action". The Court found it unpersuasive given that FAS previously agreed in the parties' draft stipulation does not give FAS the right to challenge any class notice recipient's inclusion in the class. FAS has not argued that Discovery Vendors who fail to participate in the VQ process should be precluded from joining the class, and plaintiffs have not identified any reason why it occurs. In his Order dated May 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/iAzmlj from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick agreed with the proposed management deadlines with modifications: 10 days from date of this Order Deadline to mail VQ 45 days from the date of VQ mailing Deadline for responses to VQ November 4, 2016 Fact discovery cutoff (except as to damages) January 11, 2017 Dispositive motions heard March 3, 2017 Fact discovery cutoff (as to damages) April 24, 2017 Pretrial Conference May 22, 2017 Trial Fred Bowerman and Julia Bowerman are represented by Thomas E. Duckworth, Esq. -- tom@dpolaw.com -- and -- Monique Olivier, Esq. -- monique@dplolaw.com -- DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP Field Asset Services, Inc. and Field Asset Services LLC are represented by Robert G. Hulteng, Esq. - rhulteng@littler.com -- Alison Jacquelyn Cubre, Esq. -- acubre@littler.com -- Aurelio Jose Perez, Esq. - aperez@littler.com -- Danton Wai-Ky Liang, Esq. - dliang@littler.com -- and -- Kevin R. Vozzo, Esq. - kvozzo@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON FIRST AMERICAN: 2nd Cir. Upholds Judgment and Cost Order -------------------------------------------------------- Presiding Judge Paul Turner of the Court of Appeals, Second District affirmed the district court's judgment and cost order in the case captioned, PATRICK KIRK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B257508 (2nd Cir.). On February 25, 2004, plaintiff sold real property in Los Angeles, California to Jeffrey Sjobring. Plaintiff and Mr. Sjobring retained an independent escrow company named Prestige Escrow, Inc., to close the transaction. Defendant provided sub-escrow services related to the transaction. Defendant invoiced Prestige Escrow for the following services: $100 for sub-escrow fees; $25 for two wire transfers; $15 for overnight delivery; and $20 for messenger delivery. Plaintiff paid these charges. Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 15, 2007. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on November 17, 2008. Plaintiff asserts claims for: fraud and constructive fraud; contract breach; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (implied covenant breach); negligence; negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (Unfair Competition Law). Plaintiff alleges defendant charged the class members more than the filed rate for the sub-escrow and disbursement services. The trial court awarded costs to plaintiff under the discretionary, rather than the mandatory, language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4). The trial court apportioned costs for plaintiff at 25% of the allowed costs. In plaintiff's appeal from the cost order, he asserts the class was not subject to the Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4) discretionary language. Defendant also appeals from the cost order. Defendant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by awarding any costs to plaintiff. In his Order dated June 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/aUsuJ5 from Leagle.com, Judge Turner held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and its decision does not exceed the bounds of reason. Patrick Kirk is represented by Steven J. Bernheim, Esq. -- B@thebernheimlawfirm.com -- and Nazo S. Semerjian, Esq. -- N.Semerdjian@TheBernheimLawFirm.com -- THE BERNHEIM LAW FIRM Kirk is also represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. James Strenio, Esq. Thomas Segal Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM 201 Wilshire Blvd Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: (310)395-2988 First American Title Company is represented by John Nadolenco, Esq. -- jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Andrew Z. Edelstein, Esq. -- aedelstein@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. -- aparashami@mayerbrown.com -- and Craig W. Canetti -- ccanetti@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN FORD AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Dodgy Cars -------------------------------------------------- John Rolfe, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that Ford Australia faces a potential billion-dollar liability in a new class action seeking refunds on 70,000 allegedly dodgy cars. Ford is accused of misleading or deceptive conduct in selling 22 different models of Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport vehicles between 2011 and this year because it promised a breakthrough PowerShift transmission would deliver "acceleration much smoother than a conventional automatic" only for it to cause sudden power loss, "shuddering, jerking, bucking or kicking". News Corp Australia can reveal details of the action for the first time, with documents obtained from the Federal Court showing the case is built on the experience of a Victorian woman Billie Capic who was "frightened for her life" after a power loss while driving her 2012 Focus Sport in February this year. The $29,000 car had already lost power a number of times in 2015. In October, she was unable to change gears or use reverse without difficulty. A fortnight later, she was unable to drive the vehicle faster than 80km/h. The vehicle was shaking. Then an error message showed on the dash: "Transmission overheating". Miss Capic also experienced uncontrolled movement of the car, sudden gear changes and gear-skipping. She first raised the car's jerking and shuddering with a Ford dealer in April 2013, then again in August that year, April 2014 and September 2014. Court documents filed on Ms. Capic's behalf say: "On each occasion prior to September 2014, mechanics at the Ford dealers denied (there) were defects in the affected vehicles and/or PowerShift transmission." The class action alleges the cars are not of acceptable quality, as defined under Australian Consumer Law and that Ford knew of the problems. The vehicles have never been recalled. The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchase price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated damages. The cost of refunding 70,000 cars at an average price of $25,000 would be $1.75 billion. A spokesman for the firm running the action, Bannister Law, said "thousands had registered" to be part of the case. Anyone who bought and still owned one of the 22 models was automatically included in the action, the spokesman said. A Ford spokeswoman said: "While we can't comment specifically about the ongoing litigation, Ford is committed to providing our customers with top-quality vehicles. "We are equally committed to addressing potential issues and responding quickly for our customers. We encourage customers to work with their local dealers on their individual circumstances." A case management conference is scheduled for June 29 in the Federal Court in Sydney. Earlier this month, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it would conduct a market study into the new car retailing industry to investigate concerns including compliance with consumer guarantees. Last year, the ACCC took action against Fiat Chrysler over consumer guarantee complaints. Road to nowhere "NEXT time it happens it could kill somebody." Last year Taylor Morgan's Ford Focus wilted while she was on a busy and wet Southern Cross Drive near Sydney Airport. She managed to get the car off the road. When NRMA Roadside Assistance arrived, the car was in a coma. It wasn't even giving off error messages. The NRMA man got it going and she was able to drive it to the nearest petrol station, where he took a further look. When everything looked okay, he sent her on her way. No sooner had she pulled out on to the 70km/h road than the engine malfunctioned again. The NRMA man, who had yet to leave the petrol station, saw this. He came after her and pushed the car out of harm's way. It had to be towed to a Ford dealership. "It's a major failure," Ms. Taylor said. Under consumer law, a major failure triggers rights to a refund or replacement. But Ms. Taylor hasn't been able to get a refund or replacement. So she has joined the Ford class action. Her vehicle also has the clutch shudder that the action argues makes it "not of acceptable quality". FUSION AUTOPLEX: Court Certifies Class in "Allen" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Sim Lake entered an order in the lawsuit titled RODNEY ALLEN, CEDRICK CALLEGARI, KERMECIA FAULKNER, and BERNADETTE GREEN, the Plaintiff(s), v. Fusion Autoplex, LLC, the Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-00833 (S.D. Tex.), granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Expedited Discovery. Accordingly, the Court further ordered the following: Plaintiffs are appointed as class representative. The Foley Law Firm is appointed as class counsel. Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff information for all individuals employed by Defendant as "Porters", "Car Washers", and "Manual Labors" engaged in the maintenance of vehicles sold by Defendant for three years immediately preceding the entry of this order through the present. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nukjbkTB GENERAL MOTORS: Suits Allege Emissions Test Cheating ---------------------------------------------------- Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that General Motors is the latest automaker to be accused of lying about emissions from diesel-powered cars, as Volkswagen prepares to finalize a settlement in its emissions-cheating scandal. A federal class action in Los Angeles filed June 22, that could cover thousands of owners claims the automaker's Chevrolet Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel models regularly spew out far more pollutants than federal standards allow -- up to 21 times more. Yet GM allegedly charged buyers a premium of $2,000 to $2,400 for the cars it advertised as "clean," in what the lawsuit calls "a gross deception" of buyers. On June 22, lawsuit comes a day after another class action was filed in Manhattan Federal Court, accusing GM of overstating the miles-per-gallon ratings for several of its SUVs. That complaint accuses the automaker of fraud and breach of implied warranties for allegedly misrepresenting vehicle fuel efficiency. The June 22 complaint comes from Seattle-based class-action specialists Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Attorneys from the firm co-led the litigation over unintended acceleration by Toyotas and are heavily involved in the Volkswagen diesel emissions case. Earlier this year, the firm also sued Mercedes-Benz, alleging cheating on diesel emissions. "GM manufactures, designs, markets, sells, and leases the Cruze 'Clean Diesel' vehicle as if it were a 'reduced emissions' car that complies with all applicable regulatory standards, when in fact, this GM vehicle is not 'clean diesel' and emits more pollutants than allowed by federal and state laws -- and far more than their gasoline fueled counterparts and far more than what a reasonable consumer would expect from a 'Clean Diesel,'" the firm's 308-page lawsuit declares. "GM never disclosed to consumers that its Cruze diesel engines may be 'clean' diesels in very limited circumstances, but are 'dirty' diesels under most driving conditions," the complaint states. General Motors disputed the lawsuit's accusations. "These claims are baseless and we will vigorously defend ourselves," the automaker said in a statement. "GM believes the Chevrolet Cruze turbo diesel complies with all U.S. EPA and [California Air Resources Board] emissions regulations." According to the June 22 complaint, the U.S. versions of the diesel Cruze sold from 2014 until early 2016 appear to be based on diesel vehicles sold in Europe under GM's Opel brand. In May, GM announced it would recall those Opels in Germany because the government there had found the cars emit more pollutants, specifically nitrogen oxides, in real-world testing than in laboratory testing. GM stopped producing diesel Chevy Cruzes in the U.S. in January, just a few months after the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal broke, the lawsuit notes. The company is now making a new version of the Cruze but not in a diesel model. Experts for the class action plaintiffs' side conducted their own real-world testing of some U.S. Cruze diesels and found startling results, according to the complaint. For instance, while EPA standards limit the emissions of nitrogen oxides to 50 milligrams per mile in stop-and-go driving, the Cruze diesels tested put out as much as 1,051 milligrams per mile and averaged 287 milligrams per mile, the lawsuit states. At highway speeds, the diesel cars allegedly emitted from 1.8 times to 8 times the amount set by federal standards. The test results indicate that the cars must use a "defeat device" to block pollution controls and boost power when on the road, according to the lawsuit. "Diesel emissions fraud didn't stop with Volkswagen or Mercedes," lead class counsel Steve Berman said in a statement. "GM has proven that it too placed greed and profits ahead of thousands of owners who paid premium prices for what they thought were clean diesel cars." The class action names six lead plaintiffs from as many states: Oscar Zamora of California, Brandon Stone of Arizona, Jason Silveus of Florida, Jason Counts of Michigan, Thomas Hayduk of New York, and Joshua Hurst of Ohio. They seek court orders requiring GM to buy back class members' cars or refund the diesel premiums they paid, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Associated Press reported June 23 that Volkswagen will pay about $10.2 billion to settle its own emissions-cheating scandal. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Grants Final Approval of $300-Mil. Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Linda V. Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted New York State Teachers' Retirement System's (NYSTRS) Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation and NYSTRS' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in the case captioned, NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, DANIEL F. AKERSON, NICHOLAS S. CYPRUS, CHRISTOPHER P. LIDDELL, DANIEL AMMANN, CHARLES K. STEVENS, III, MARY T. BARRA, THOMAS S. TIMKO, and GAY P. KENT, Defendants, Case No. 14-11191 (E.D. Mich.). GM agrees to pay $300 million into an escrow account for the benefit of the Settlement Class. The class action lawsuit brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) alleges misrepresentations and omissions stemming from the failure of General Motors Company (GM) and certain GM executives to timely recall numerous GM vehicle models due to a defective ignition switch and to properly account for the liabilities that were the product of the defect. New York State Teachers' Retirement System (NYSTRS), suing on behalf of itself and all other persons similarly situated, claims that Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions related to the ignition switch defect resulted in the artificial inflation of the price of GM Common stock and, when the truth was revealed through a series of disclosures, the decline in the value of the stock. For purposes of effectuating settlement, the Court approved a Class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GM common stock from November 17, 2010 through July 24, 2014, inclusive (the Settlement Class Period), and who were damaged thereby (hereafter Class or Settlement Class). NYSTRS and Defendants in fact reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved on November 20, 2015 in an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. NYSTRS moved for Final Approval of Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation. Lead Counsel has separately moved for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 7% of the Settlement Fund, or $21 million, plus interest and reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred by counsel and NYSTRS. In her Opinion and Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/OrYMga from Leagle.com, Judge Parker concluded that the Settlement and Plan of Allocation are fair, reasonable, and adequate and entitled to final approval. The Court also found that Lead Counsel and NYSTRS are entitled to awards reimbursing them for the attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in litigating the action on behalf of the Class and that the awards sought are reasonable. New York State Teachers' Retirement System is represented by Adam Wierzbowski, Esq. -- adam@blbglaw.com -- James Abram Harrod, Esq. -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Rebecca Ellen Boon, Esq. -- Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- and Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP Marc L. Newman, Esq. -- mln@millerlawpc.com -- E. Powell Miller, Esq. -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- and Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. General Motors Company is represented by Raymond W. Henney, Esq. -- rhenney@honigman.com -- HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP, Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. -- robert.kopecky@kirkland.com -- and Timothy A. Duffy, Esq. -- tim.duffy@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS Garden City Group, LLC will to supervise and administer the notice procedure in connection with the settlement and to process claims. GENGHIS GRILL: "Arnold" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- COURTNIE ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENGHIS GRILL, GENGHIS GRILL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, GENGHIS GRILL FRANCHISE CONCEPTS, LP, CHALAK MITRAS GROUP, LLC, CMG GENERAL PARTNERS, LLC, CHALAK-M&M OK1, LLC, CHALAK-M&M OK2, LLC, CHALAK-M&M OK3, LLC, CHALAK-M&M OK4, LLC, AKASH BHAKTA, CHETAN BHAKTA, RONAK PARIKH, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1- 10, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00328-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a bartender and hourly manager at the Genghis Grill restaurant located at 10438 South 82nd East Avenue, Bixby, Oklahoma. The Defendants allegedly did not pay Arnold the proper minimum wages for all of the time that she was suffered or permitted to work each workweek. The Defendants own, operate, manage, and/or control Genghis Grill restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Daniel Woska, Esq. WoskaLawFirm, PLLC 722 N. Broadway, Mezzanine Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 657 2271 Facsimile: (405) 285 7626 E-mail: awoska@woskalawfirm.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. THE WISE FIRM LLC P.O. Box 701 Carlinville, IL 62626 Telephone: (217) 710 1403 E-mail: brandon.wise@thewisefirm.com - and - Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4610 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 523 2434 Facsimile: (504) 523 2464 E-mail: jpeiffer@prwlegal.com GERAWAN FARMING: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, RAFAEL MARQUEZ AMARO, JESUS ALARCON URZUA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GERAWAN FARMING, INC., a California corporation; GERAWAN FARMING PARTNERS, INC., a California Corporation; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-00147-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.). On February 3, 2014, Rafael Marquez Amaro and Jesus Alarcon Urzua (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Gerawan Farming, Inc. and Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. (defendants) alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), codified at 29 U.S.C. Sections 1801 et seq., as well as various California labor laws. Plaintiffs are former employees of defendants. Defendants implemented a substantial wage policy change in October 2013 and began to compensate piece-rate employees for rest periods separate from those employees' piece-rate earnings. Beginning in 2013, piece-rate employees were paid for earned ten minute rest periods at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Defendants increased this amount to $11.00 per hour in 2014 and to each employee's average hourly piece-rate in 2015. Plaintiffs allege defendants' practices resulted in multiple violations of federal and state law. In the motion, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 of "All persons who are employed or have been employed by GERAWAN, and who have worked one or more shifts as a non-exempt hourly field worker and paid by piece rate in the State of California since four (4) years prior to the filing of this action." Plaintiffs also seek to certify these subclasses: (1) Piece-Rate Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by Defendant Gerawan as a non-exempt, hourly field worker or similar titles, who were paid a piece-rate from February 3, 2010 up to the present. (2) Minimum Wage Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by Defendant Gerawan as a non-exempt, hourly field worker or similar titles, from February 3, 2010 to the present, whose compensation for any shift totaled less than the minimum wage. (3) Former Employee Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by Defendant Gerawan as a non-exempt, hourly field worker or similar titles, from February 3, 2010 to the present, who were laid off at the end of a season. In the Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xYjyQJ from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd found that the plaintiffs met the requisites of class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court appointed Kingsley & Kingsley and Mart¡nez, Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC as co-class counsel. Rafael Marquez Amaro and Jesus Alarcon Urzua are represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq. -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- and -- Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. -- liane@kingsleykingsley.com -- KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC -- and Mario Martinez, Esq. -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC Gerawan Farming, Inc. and Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. are represented by David Abba Schwarz, Esq. -- dschwarz@irell.com -- IRELL & MANELLA Gerawan is also represented by: Patrick Moody, Esq. Ronald H. Barsamian, Esq. BARSAMIAN & MOODY 1141 W Shaw Ave # 104, Fresno, CA 93711 Tel: (559)248-2360 GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL: Dawson Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MEREDITH D. DAWSON, the Plaintiff, v. GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC., GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, JILL LEITL, DAVID LENTZ, and MICHAEL WALKER, the Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-00475-bbc (W.D. Wisc.), moves to certify the following Class: All persons who, between January 1, 2006 and the present: (i) were borrowers of a student loan issued under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL or FFELP), or of a student loan issued under the Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct); (ii) had their FFELP and/or Direct student loan(s) serviced by Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. or Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation (Great Lakes); and (iii) had Great Lakes place their FFELP and/or Direct student loan(s) in an administrative forbearance status for up to 60 days, concurrent with the processing of their application for a deferment, forbearance, consolidation loan, or a change in repayment plan. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their respective officers, affiliates and directors at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint her as Class Representative her counsel, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, as Class Counsel. Filed concurrently in support of the Motion are the following documents: (1) the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; (2) the Declaration of Meredith D. Dawson in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; (3) the Declaration of David J. Harris, Jr. in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and (4) the Declaration of Jeffrey R. Krinsk in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8fzxa5X9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. William R. Restis, Esq. David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238 1333 Facsimile: (619) 238 5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com wrr@classactionlaw.com djh@classactionlaw.com trk@classactionlaw.com GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: Court Won't Decertify Late Meal Break Class --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Defendant's motion to decertify a class in the case captioned, RAFAEL MUNOZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GIUMARRA VINEYARDS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:09-CV-00703-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.). On November 9, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel initiated an action against table grape growers based in Kern County, including Giumarra Vineyards Corporation. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against Giumarra Vineyards on September 22, 2009. Plaintiffs alleged Defendant was liable for: violations of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1801, failure to pay wages, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to reimburse required expenses, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions and record keeping requirements, breach of contract, and violation of unfair competition law. Plaintiffs brought the action "on behalf of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class comprising all non-exempt agricultural, packing shed, and storage cooler employees employed, or formerly employed, by each of the Defendants within the State of California." The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification in part, certifying only the "Late Meal Class" and "Tools Class." Defendant seeks decertification of the Late Meal Break Class, asserting it is "unsustainable" because individual issues predominate and a trial would be unmanageable. Plaintiffs oppose decertification, arguing common issues predominate over the individual questions. In her Findings and Recommendations dated May 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/EoHsom from Leagle.com, Thurston found that the Defendant fails to demonstrate the Late Meal Class no longer satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, or that individualized inquiries will predominate. Plaintiffs are represented by Darren Michael Cohen, Esq. -- dcohenlaw@sbcglobal.net -- and Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq. -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC, Erica Deutsch, Esq. -- edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- and Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq. -- igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- BUSH GOTTLIEB Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Esq. -- hector@themmlawfirm.com -- Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq. -- jsutton@themmlawfirm.com -- Marco A. Palau, Esq. -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- and Stanley S. Mallison, Esq. - - stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- MALLISON & MARTINEZ, Mario Martinez, Esq. -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- and Thomas Patrick Lynch, Esq. -- tlynch@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ, AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, APLC, Douglas D. Winter, Esq. -- ddw@mcnicholaslaw.com -- and Matthew Sawaya, Esq. -- ms@mcnicholaslaw.com -- MCNICHOLAS AND MCNICHOLAS, LLP -- and Nicole Marie Duckett, Esq. -- ndfricke@clippers.com -- MILBERG WEISS LLP Giumarra Vineyards Corporation is represented by Joseph C. Markowitz, Esq. -- jcmarkowitz@jcmarkowitz.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH C. MARKOWITZ GULF INTERSTATE: Certification of Class Sought in "Sloane" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled THOMAS SLOANE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. GULF INTERSTATE FIELD SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01208-NBF (W.D. Pa.), moves the Court to certify his Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Unjust Enrichment claims as a class action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VItWmWae The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. James A. Jones, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com jjones@brucknerburch.com HANNIBAL, MO: Court Stays Discovery in "Blair" Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case, JACOB BLAIR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HANNIBAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15CV00061 ERW (E.D. Mo.), Senior District Judge, E. Richard Webber grants defendants' request for Temporary Stay of Discovery pending resolution of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings currently before the court. When determining whether to grant a stay, district courts consider the merits of the pending dispositive motion, and the breadth of pending discovery, and balance the harm of delaying discovery against the possibility the entire matter will be resolved by the motion. The Court has considered the burden of discovery to Hannibal and the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs in granting a stay. A copy of the court's June 8, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/8jJEoLfrom Leagle.com. Hannibal, Missouri, City of, Defendant, represented by Edward V. Crites -- ecrites@bmplaw.com -- Behr, McCarter & Potter, P.C., Timothy J. Reichardt -- treichardt@bmplaw.com -- BEHR AND MCCARTER, P.C. & W. Dudley McCarter, III -- dmccarter@bmplaw.com - - BEHR, MCCARTER, & POTTER. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by JoAnn Tracy Sandifer -- joann.sandifer@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP & Omri E. Praiss -- omri.praiss@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP. HENRY INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Must Identify Representative --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, JAMES HOSE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HENRY INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-2490-JTM-GEB (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Defendant's Motion to Extend the Parties' ADR Deadline and granted in part its Motion to Require Remaining Opt-In Plaintiffs to Identify a Representative. Plaintiffs must designate one or more representative plaintiffs by filing an Amended Complaint on or before September 5, 2016. Plaintiff James Hose filed a Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq (FLSA) on behalf of delivery drivers engaged by defendant Henry Industries, Inc., a company which arranges deliveries for various pharmaceutical companies. Hose filed the action claiming: 1) the drivers are employees, not independent contractors as classified by Defendant; and 2) the drivers were not paid overtime wages as required under the FLSA. The case was conditionally certified as a collective action on September 24, 2014. On January 22, 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's request to dismiss without prejudice the opt- in plaintiffs making deliveries in the state of Missouri, allowing those plaintiffs to join an ongoing Missouri state action and automatically dismissing them without prejudice from the case. Defendant contends the opt-in Plaintiffs misinterpret the January 22 Order to conclude the case may proceed without the identification of a representative plaintiff. Defendant further argues the absence of a named plaintiff representing the conditionally-certified class creates a multitude of unnecessary logistical, procedural, and legal issues for the parties and the Court, and asks the Court to require Plaintiffs to designate a representative. On May 11, 2016, the Court convened a telephone conference to discuss both motions. The conditionally-certified class of plaintiffs appeared through counsel, Kevin J. Dolley. Defendant Henry Industries, Inc. appeared through counsel, Alisa Nickel Ehrlich. In her Memorandum and Order dated May 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/1JZNy6 from Leagle.com, Judge Birzer held that Plaintiffs' counsel's sincere belief that a lack of representative will not hinder settlement discussions and in light of the considerable planning and expense the parties have already incurred. Plaintiffs are required to designate a representative plaintiff and Plaintiffs are given an opportunity to complete additional discovery prior to designation. Plaintiffs are represented by Jason Finkes, Esq. -- jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com -- and Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. -- Kevin@dolleylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC They are also represented by: Cyrus Dashtaki, Esq. DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC 5205 Hampton Ave St. Louis, MO 63139 Tel: (314)932-7671 Henry Industries, Inc. is represented by Alisa Nickel Ehrlich, Esq. -- alisa.ehrlich@stinson.com -- Molly E. Walsh, Esq. -- molly.walsh@stinson.com -- and Stephanie N. Scheck, Esq. -- stephanie.scheck@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Certification Sought in Humidifier Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled SCOTT JOHNSEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No: 4:14-cv-00594-RLW (E.D. Mo.), asks the Court to: 1. grant his Motion for Class Certification. 2. certify a Missouri Rule 23(b)(3) Class defined as: All individuals and entities within the State of Missouri that have owned, own, or acquired homes or residential buildings or structures physically located within the State of Missouri in which an HM506, HM509, or HM512 Honeywell TrueSTEAM Humidifier is or has been installed and that have failed. 3. certify a Missouri Rule 23(b)(2) Class defined as: All individuals and entities within the State of Missouri that have owned, own, or acquired homes or residential buildings or structures physically located within the State of Missouri in which HM506, HM509, HM512 Honeywell TrueSTEAM Humidifier is or has been installed and that have not failed A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k4HuNXyg The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 300 North Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63011 Telephone: (314) 226 1015 Facsimile: (202) 789 1813 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Brendan Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789 3960 Facsimile: (202) 789 1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Michael A. McShane, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 568 2555 Facsimile: (415) 576 1776 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com HUBERT ALLEN: Ohno Enterprises Suit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned OHNO ENTERPRISES, A NEVADA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, v. HUBERT ALLEN, Defendant, No. 15-CV-6675 (KAM) (RER) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. On June 26, 2015, Ohno Enterprises, a Nevada family limited partnership, brought an action against Hubert Allen in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, seeking, inter alia, to dissolve a partnership entered into by the two parties and sell their partnership's real property. Almost four months after he was served with the summons and complaint in July 2015, Allen filed an unsigned notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 23, 2015. Ohno subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court, arguing that the removal was untimely. Judge Matsumoto found that Allen's tardy removal was not excusable because Allen indisputably knew facts that enabled him to assess removability at the time he was served with the complaint, and the removal occurred well outside the 30-day window prescribed by 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(1). A full-text copy of Judge Matsumoto's June 22, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/VcyVB5 from Leagle.com. Ohno Enterprises, Plaintiff, represented by Amos Weinberg, Law Office of Amos Weinberg & Ali F. Weinberg, Amos Weinberg Law Office. Hubert Allen, Defendant, represented by Roger V. Archibald. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Dismisses Consumer Suit with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert B. Kugler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims with prejudice in the case captioned, Deedra L. BOWEN, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 15-6942 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J.). Defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of automobiles and automotive parts. On October 22, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Hyundai Sonata. Defendant issued the Blue Link Subscription Agreement to Plaintiff when she purchased the vehicle. Plaintiff commenced a putative class action against Defendant, alleging violations of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA). She filed her Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County on July 31, 2015. Defendant timely removed the matter to the District Court on September 18, 2015. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred because the Blue Link Agreement contains a one-year limitations provision, and Plaintiff did not bring her claims within one year of accrual. Plaintiff argues that her claims did not accrue when she received the Blue Link Agreement, or alternatively that the contractual limitations provision is unenforceable. In his Opinion and Order dated June 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/BQyRsf from Leagle.com, Judge Kugler found that the limitations provision contained in the Blue Link Agreement is reasonable and enforceable. Because Plaintiff failed to file her TCCWNA claims by October 22, 2014, her claims are time-barred. The Court held that amendment would be futile in the case because Plaintiff's claims are time-barred as a matter of law. Deedra L. Bowen is represented by Lewis G. Adler, Esq. -- lewisadler@verizon.net -- LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER Hyundai Motor America is represented by Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- and -- Jacqueline M. Weyand, Esq. -- jacqueline.weyand@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC J. JACOBO: Court Grants Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion to strike Bedrosian Farms' affirmative defenses in the case captioned, MARISOL GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J. JACOBO FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC., and BEDROSIAN FARMS, LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-1489-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Marisol Gomez alleges that she is (or was) employed by Defendants, as joint employers, to perform agricultural work "at various times during the Class Period reaching back four years prior to the filing of the action through approximately 2015." On September 15, 2015, she filed a putative wage and hour class action on behalf of herself and other past and present non-exempt, agricultural and packing shed employees employed by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in "a pattern of employer misconduct," centering on their "piece rate system of compensation, their meal and rest break practices, and their record-keeping procedures." Plaintiff's complaint alleged nine causes of action: (1) violation of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq.; (2) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197; (3) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, and 1194.2; (4) failure to provide timely and complete meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (5) failure to provide timely and complete rest periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (6) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; (7) failure to provide correct wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226(b), 1174, and 1175; (8) violation of Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., premised on violation of the statutes underlying the first seven causes of action; and (9) an claim pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), California Labor Code Sections 2689 et seq., seeking civil penalties and unpaid wages, also premised on violation of the statutes underlying the first seven causes of action. Plaintiff filed separate motions, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), to strike select affirmative defenses alleged by Bedrosian and Jacobo. The thrust of Plaintiff's argument is that many of the affirmative defenses alleged are (1) insufficiently detailed such that they are not in compliance with Rule 8 or (2) inapplicable to the case, as a matter of law. In his Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ZFHoZP from Leagle.com, Judge Ishii held that Plaintiff's motion to strike will be granted as to Jacobo's fifth amended affirmative defense and all of Bedrosian's affirmative defenses except its fourteenth because each is devoid of factual allegations. Marisol Gomez is represented by Eric Sebastian Trabucco, Esq. Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Esq. -- hector@themmlawfirm.com -- Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq. -- josephs@themmlawfirm.com -- Marco A. Palau, Esq. -- marcop@themmlawfirm.com -- and -- Stanley S. Mallison, Esq. -- stanleym@themmlawfirm.com -- MALLISON & MARTINEZ, Mario Martinez, Esq. -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. is represented by Gerardo Hernandez, Jr., Esq. -- gvh@raimondoassociates.com -- RAIMONDO & ASSOCIATES Bedrosian Farms LLC is represented by Kevin V. Koligian, Esq. -- kkoligian@littler.com -- Allison K. Pierce, Esq. -- apierce@littler.com -- and Andrew Hoon Woo, Esq. -- awoo@caed.uscourts.gov -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Harrington Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled GARY HARRINGTON on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00625-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla.), alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and seeks to certify this class of similarly-situated persons: Proposed Improper Disclosure and Authorization Class: All Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC's employees and job applicants in the United States who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by ISS Facility Services, Inc. within five years of the filing of this complaint through the date of final judgment in this action as required by the FCRA. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, and to appoint the law firm Morgan & Morgan, P.A. as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1mvUwCtK The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Reed Edelman, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Andrew Frisch, Esq. MARC R. EDELMAN PA 1925 E.2nd Avenue Tampa, FL 33605 Telephone: (813) 982 4326 E-mail: marc@edelmanfirm.com RMorgan@forthepeople.com AFrisch@forthepeople.com KRAFT HEINZ: "Lee" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 ------------------------------------------------ Debra Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00536, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Ohio, to U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Illinois Northern District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06176 to the proceeding. Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces, condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea & Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names. The "Lee" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 812 East National Road Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435 7500 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Philip Sholtz, Esq. John J Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM 211 N. Broadway, Suite 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 932 3232 Facsimile: (314) 932 3233 E-mail: phil@thedriscollfirm.com john@thedriscollfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Philip Roland Bautista, Esq. Michael J. Zbiegien Jr., Esq. Amelia J. Workman-Farago, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 706 3957 E-mail: pbautista@taftlaw.com mzbiegien@taftlaw.com afarago@taftlaw.com KRAFT HEINZ: "Randolph" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 ----------------------------------------------------- Melissa Leigh Randolph, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80511, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - Chicago). The Northern District assigned Case No.: 1:16-cv-06168 to the proceeding. Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces, condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea & Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names. The "Randolph" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO- Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv- 05802. The Plaintiff is represented by: Grey Tesh, Esq. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 600 4166 Facsimile: (561) 697 8317 E-mail: gt@greytesh.com - and - William Charles Wright WILLIAM C. WRIGHT LAW OFFICES 319 Clematis St. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514 0904 Facsimile: (561) 514 0905 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Elizabeth Bruce Trehan, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BOGGS BANKER 501 E Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1700 PO Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 228 7411 Facsimile: (813) 229 8313 E-mail: ashley.trehan@bipc.com KRAFT HEINZ: "Sellers" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 ---------------------------------------------------- Chrissy Sellers and Kristie Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 0:16- cv-60624, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06165 to the proceeding. Kraft Heinz produces and markets food products in the United States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces, condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea & Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names. The "Sellers" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES 2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 298 4455 E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Angelika Hunnefeld, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG 333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 579 0500 Facsimile: (305) 579 0717 E-mail: hunnefelda@gtlaw.com LA PICCOLA FONTANA: Certification of "Battistini" Class Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory grants the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit captioned FRANCISCO A. GRILLASCA BATTISTINI, et al., v. LA PICCOLA FONTANA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02167-JAG (D.P.R.). The conditional class certification is granted as to all non- managerial employees in tipped positions dating back three years before the filing of the complaint in the Case. The Defendants are ordered to provide, within 30 days of the Opinion and Order, the names and contact information of the potential class members. The Court also orders the Plaintiffs to prepare a proposed notice in Spanish to be submitted to the Court within 30 days from the service and filing of the Opinion and Order, after which the Plaintiffs may post the proposed notice of the lawsuit in Spanish and English in the Defendants' restaurant. A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uKIRDsLv LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Certification of Homeless Persons Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Sestini, Michael Newman and Richard Owens, three of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Kenneth Glover, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH; THE LAGUNA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, a California charter city, Case No. 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify this class: All homeless persons who reside or will reside in the geographic area of Laguna Beach who have a mental and/or physical disability as defined under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act and who have been, or are likely to be, cited for violations of California Penal Code section 647(e), Laguna Beach Municipal Code section 8.30.030 and/or Laguna Beach Municipal Code section 18.05.020. The Plaintiffs also seek an order appointing them as Class Representatives, and appointing their counsel, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and Paul Hastings LLP, as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on October 3, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3zh1fS2v The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq. Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 1851 E. First Street, Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 450-3962 Facsimile: (714) 543-5240 E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org bescobosahelzer@aclusocal.org - and - David M. Hernand, Esq. Andrew B. Grossman, Esq. Katherine F. Murray, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 E-mail: davidhernand@paulhastings.com andrewgrossman@paulhastings.com katherinemurray@paulhastings.com LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE: 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, CAROL LOWDEN, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-02853-PJH (N.D. Cal.). 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. A copy of the order issued on June 9, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/E12MoVfrom Leagle.com. Carol Lowden, Plaintiff, represented by Frank N. Darras -- frank@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw, Lissa Anne Martinez -- lmartinez@darraslaw.com DarrasLaw, Phillip Sinclair Bather -- pbather@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw & Susan Borondia Grabarsky -- sgrabarsky@darraslaw.com -- DarrasLaw. LONE STAR: "Anzaldua" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE ANZALDUA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LONE STAR LABS INC. AND VAN C. QUAN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01552 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Lone Star violated the FLSA by employing Anzaldua and other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed. Anzaldua, hence, seeks judgment awarding her and the other administrative assistants and lab technicians all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys" fees and costs. The Class is defined as: All administrative assistants and lab technicians employed by Lone Star Labs Inc. during the last three years. Lone Star Labs is a DNA sequencing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Rochelle Owens, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222 6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES: Sanon-Lauredant Must Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned LLOYDIE SANON-LAUREDANT, Plaintiff, v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civ. No. 15-6529 (KM) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty granted the defendant LTD Financial Services, L.P.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings, without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. A full-text copy of Judge McNulty's June 22, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/tpHv1Z from Leagle.com. The putative class action was brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Lloydie Sanon-Lauredant alleged that LTD attempted to collect payment from her on a time-barred debt in a manner that violated the FDCPA. The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from making a "false, deceptive, or misleading representation" or using "unfair and unconscionable means" in the course of collecting a debt. LLOYDIE SANON-LAUREDANT, Plaintiff, represented by GLEN H. CHULSKY, JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendant, represented by RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC & MONICA M. LITTMAN -- mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC. MACY'S INC: Faces "Carder" Suit in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Macy's Inc. The case is captioned Job Carder and Erica Vinci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Macy's Inc., Macy's West Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale's, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03341-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 15, 2016). The Assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Kandis A. Westmore. Macy's, originally Federated Department Stores, Inc. is an American holding company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Cruz Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ CHARLES LLP 600 S. Lake Ave., Suite 504 Pasadena, CA 91006 Telephone: (626) 844 7710 Facsimile: (626) 844 7740 E-mail: mmartinez@martinezcharles.com MDL 2067: Painters Fund Appeal Ruling in Suit v. Forest ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled Painters and Allied Trades v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., which is part of the multidistrict litigation entitled In Re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices, MDL No. 1:09-md-02067-NMG. The Plaintiffs allege that Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., engaged in false and misleading promotion of Celexa and Lexapro for pediatric or adolescent use and sought to induce physicians and others to prescribe Celexa or Lexapro by providing them with various forms of illegal remuneration. The Plaintiffs further allege that this conduct caused them economic harm. The appellate case is captioned as Painters and Allied Trades v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-8024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Plaintiff-Petitioner Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Heath Care Fund is represented by: Sam Griffin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF S. SAMUEL GRIFFIN PO Box 77373 Atlanta, GA 30357 Telephone: (404) 989-0665 Plaintiff-Petitioner Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Heath Care Fund and Plaintiffs Martha Palumbo and Peter Palumbo are represented by: Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com - and - Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 24110 Eden St. PO Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com - and - Robert Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com Plaintiffs Martha Palumbo and Peter Palumbo are represented by: Michael L. Baum, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 E-mail: MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 24110 Eden St. PO Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com - and - Harris L. Pogust, Esq. POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD LLC 161 Washington St., Suite 1520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 941-4204 E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com Plaintiffs Jayne Ehrlich and Anna Murret are represented by: Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 24110 Eden St. PO Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com - and - Harris L. Pogust, Esq. POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD LLC 161 Washington St., Suite 1520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 941-4204 E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com Plaintiff Anna Murret is represented by: Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 24110 Eden St. PO Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com Plaintiff Universal Care, Inc., is represented by: Michael L. Baum, Esq. Roger D. Drake, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 E-mail: MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com RDrake@DrakeandDrake.com - and - Douglas R. Sprong, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 N 7th St., Suite 3600 St. Loius, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (800) 678-9529 E-mail: dsprong@koreintillery.com - and - Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 West Madison St., Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com Plaintiffs Angela Jaeckel and Melvin M. Fullmer are represented by: Michael L. Baum, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 E-mail: MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com - and - Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com - and - Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 24110 Eden St. PO Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6396 E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com - and - Douglas R. Sprong, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 N 7th St., Suite 3600 St. Loius, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (800) 678-9529 E-mail: dsprong@koreintillery.com - and - Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 West Madison St., Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com - and - Robert Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com Plaintiff New Mexico UFCW Union's and Employer's Health and Welfare Trust Fund is represented by: Justin Bloom, Esq. PO 1028 Sarasota, FL 34230 Telephone: (917) 991-7593 - and - David R. Buchanan, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water St. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com - and - James R. Dugan, II, Esq. David Baylis Franco, Esq. Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC 365 Canal St., Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Toll Free: (866) 328-7670 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 - and - Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East 2 Seaport Ln Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com - and - Shane Youtz, Esq. YOUTZ AND VALDEZ, P.C. 900 Gold Ave, SW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 244-1200 Facsimile: (505) 244-9700 E-mail: shane@youtzvaldez.com Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund is represented by: David R. Buchanan, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water St. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com - and - James R. Dugan, II, Esq. David Baylis Franco, Esq. Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC 365 Canal St., Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Toll Free: (866) 328-7670 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 - and - Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East 2 Seaport Ln Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com Plaintiff Municipal Reinsurance Health Insurance Fund is represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142-0000 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com Plaintiff Ruth Dunham is represented by: Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com Plaintiff Tanya Shippy is represented by: Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com - and - Robert Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com Plaintiffs Tara Johndrow and Brian Anson are represented by: John J. Driscoll, Esq. DRISCOLL FIRM 211 N Broadway, Suite 2440 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 932-3232 Plaintiff Scott A. Wilcox is represented by: Sharon Arkin, Esq. THE ARKIN LAW FIRM 101 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 112 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (541) 469-2892 Facsimile: (866) 571-5676 E-mail: sarkin@arkinlawfirm.com - and - George M. Fleming, Esq. Rand Patrick Nolen, Esq. FLEMING NOLEN & JEZ LLP 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 621-7944 - and - Laura Ann Gianni, Esq. GIANNI PETOYAN 17383 Sunset Blvd., Suite A 200 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Telephone: (310) 230-6767 Facsimile: (310) 230-6051 E-mail: lag@giannipetoyan.com - and - Keith Morgan, Esq. Keith Morgan PLLC 160 Chapel Ln Madison, MS 39110 - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142-0000 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com Plaintiffs Randy Marcus and Bonnie Marcus are represented by: Michael L. Baum, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 E-mail: MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com - and - Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com - and - Robert Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com Plaintiff Jill Powell is represented by: Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 West Madison St., Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com Defendants-Respondents Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are represented by: Johan Robert Abraham, Esq. Andrew J. Ceresney, Esq. Nicole E. Jacoby, Esq. Bryan P. Kessler, Esq. Kristin D. Kiehn, Esq. Noelle E. Lyle, Esq. Steven S. Michaels, Esq. Edwin Glenn Schallert, Esq. Danielle E. Thorne, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10022-0000 Telephone: (212) 909-6018 E-mail: ajceresney@debevoise.com jrabraham@debevoise.com kdkiehn@debevoise.com nelyle@debevoise.com egschall@debevoise.com dethorne@debevoise.com - and - William Fitts Benson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2 Seaport Ln, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02210-1800 Telephone: (617) 946-4993 E-mail: wbenson@seyfarth.com - and - Andrew Kanter, Esq. Natasha C. Lisman, Esq. Joshua D. Nadreau, Esq. John G. O'Neill, Esq. SUGARMAN ROGERS BARSHAK & COHEN PC 101 Merrimac St. Boston, MA 02114-0000 Telephone: (617) 227-3030 E-mail: lisman@srbc.com nadreau@srbc.com oneill@srbc.com - and - Cicely I. Lubben, Esq. Sandra J. Wunderlich, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (314) 259-4521 E-mail: cicely.lubben@stinson.com sandra.wunderlich@stinson.com Defendant-Respondent Forest Laboratories, Inc., is represented by: Bethany A. Davis Noll, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10022-0000 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: badavisn@debevoise.com Defendant-Respondent Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is represented by: Peter Simpson Ross, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10022-0000 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 Defendants Warner-Lambert Co. and Pfizer, Inc., are represented by: Andrew J. Ceresney, Esq. Nicole E. Jacoby, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10022-0000 Telephone: (212) 909-6018 E-mail: ajceresney@debevoise.com - and - Mark S. Cheffo, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-0000 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com - and - Barbara Wrubel, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-2314 Facsimile: (917) 777-2314 E-mail: barbara.wrubel@skadden.com Interested Party Natalie Luster is represented by: Douglas P. Dowd, Esq. William T. Dowd, Esq. Alex Lumaghi, Esq. DOWD & DOWD PC 211 N Broadway, Suite 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-2500 E-mail: doug@dowdlaw.net bill@dowdlaw.net alex@dowdlaw.net - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. Christopher Joseph Quinn, Esq. DRISCOLL FIRM 211 N Broadway, Suite 2440 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 932-3232 - and - Ryan Patrick McManus, Esq. HEMENWAY & BARNES LLP 60 State St Boston, MA 02109-0000 Telephone: (617) 227-7940 E-mail: rmcmanus@hembar.com MDL 2262: Banks' Bid for Leave to Strike Class Allegations Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation. This Document Applies to: CASES LISTED IN APPENDIX, Case No. 11 MDL 2262 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants' request for leave to file motions to strike class allegations in the Exchange-Based, Mortgagor, and Over-the-Counter (OTC) complaints. Plaintiff Carlito J. Rivera brings claims of fraud by omission and of violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Rivera originally sought to represent a class consisting of "all residents of the United States of America who obtained a LIBOR- indexed Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan from Defendant Bank of America, N.A. during the Manipulation Period (March 2007 through March 2011)." Defendant Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. (f/k/a Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A.) (Rabobank) seeks leave to file a motion to strike the trader-based class allegations in the Exchange-Based Plaintiffs' complaint arguing that individual issues will predominate over common ones due to the day-by-day nature of plaintiffs' trader-based claims. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) requests leave to strike the class allegations in the putative Mortgagor Class' First Amended Complaint arguing that the Court should strike the class allegations because (1) variations in state laws preclude class certification; (2) individual issues of actual and justifiable reliance predominate over common issues; and (3) individual issues of mitigation predominate over common issues. Defendants Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG, and Royal Bank of Canada seek leave to strike class allegations in the OTC complaint as to claims brought by plaintiff SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust (SEIU). In her Memorandum and Order dated May 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/I11pCv from Leagle.com, Judge Buchwald concluded that there is no reason at the stage, as plaintiffs point out, to presume that defendants will not advance identical arguments against the class as a whole, and therefore these defenses may not be unique to SEIU. Defendants' requests to file motions to strike class allegations from the Mortgagor, OTC, and Exchange-Based complaints are denied, except that the Court strike the nationwide class allegations in the Mortgagor complaint. FTC Capital GMBH and Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia are represented by Christopher Lovell, Esq. -- LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP, Daniel Hume, Esq. -- dhume@kmllp.com -- David E. Kovel, Esq. -- dkovel@kmllp.com -- Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq. -- lpederson@kmllp.com -- and Surya Palaniappan, Esq. -- spalaniappan@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP Bank of America Corporation is represented by Paul Steel Mishkin, Esq. -- paul.mishkin@davispolk.com -- Arthur J. Burke, Esq. -- arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- Julie Saranow Epley, Esq. -- julie.epley@davispolk.com -- Neal Alan Potischman, Esq. - neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- and Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq. -- robert.wise@davispolk.com -- DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP Barclays Bank Plc,, Defendant, represented by David R. Boyd, Esq. -- dboyd@bsfllp.com -- and Jonathan David Schiller, Esq. -- BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, David Harold Braff, Esq. -- braffd@sullcrom.com -- Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- and Yvonne Susan Quinn, Esq. -- quinny@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP MDL 2328: Motion to Exclude Johnson Testimony Denied ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of two reports and related testimony of Dr. John H. Johnson, IV in the case captioned, IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION SECTION: R(2). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES, MDL No. 2328 (E.D. La.). The antitrust case was filed by direct-purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs) and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) against Pool Corp. and the manufacturer defendants, namely Hayward Industries, Inc., Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc., and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. Pool is the country's largest distributor of products used for the construction and maintenance of swimming pools. IPPs filed three amended complaints, the most recent on July 16, 2013. Following the Court's order on defendants' motion to dismiss IPPs' state-law claims, IPPs were left with the following claims: California Unfair Competition Law and rule of reason Cartwright Act claims involving three vertical conspiracies; Arizona Antitrust Act claims involving three vertical conspiracies and a claim of attempted monopolization against Pool; Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims involving three vertical conspiracies and a claim of attempted monopolization against Pool; and Missouri Merchandising Practice Acts claims based on defendants' alleged anticompetitive agreements to exclude Pool's rivals and Pool's attempted monopolization. On April 29, 2016, the Court granted Pool's motions for summary judgment on IPPs' vertical conspiracy claims. In the motion, Plaintiffs challenge four aspects of Dr. Johnson's opinion, all of which pertain to his conclusion that Dr. Gordon C. Rausser's Common Factors regression and Overcharge regression are fundamentally flawed. In her Order and Reasons dated May 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/bB6xiy from Leagle.com, Judge Vance found that Dr. Johnson's analysis is sufficiently grounded in economic theory and methods, as well as the facts of this case, to satisfy reliability standards. Richard C. Stanley is represented by Richard C. Stanley, Esq. -- rcs@stanleyreuter.com -- STANLEY, REUTER, ROSS, THORNTON & ALFORD, LLC Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is represented by: Russ M. Herman, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP 820 O Keefe Ave New Orleans, LA70113 Phone: (504) 581-4892 Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is represented by: Thomas J. H. Brill, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. BRILL 8012 State Line Rd, Ste 102 Mission Hills, KS 66208-3712 Tel: (913) 677-2004 Defendants' Liaison Counsel is represented by William Bernard Gaudet, Esq. -- william.gaudet@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP Defendants' Lead Counsel is represented by David H. Bamberger, Esq. -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com -- and Katherine M. Ruffing, Esq. -- katherine.ruffing@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, LLP Manufacturer Defendants' Liaison Counsel is represented by Wayne J. Lee, Esq. -- wlee@stonepigman.com -- STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER, WITTMANN, LLC MDL 2331: Court Remands Michelson's Product Liability Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE PROPECIA (FINASTERIDE) PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. KYLE MICHELSON, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD RASSMAN, M.D., JAE P. PAK,: M.D., MERCK CORPORATION, MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., NEW HAIR INSTITUTE MEDICAL GROUP, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants, No. 12-MD-2331 (BMC)(PK), Individual Case No. 14 Civ. 5919 (BMC)(PK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Kyle Michelson, a California domiciliary, commenced the action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the defendants Dr. Richard Rassman, Dr. Jae Pak, and New Hair Medical Institute (the "California defendants") committed medical malpractice by treating his male pattern baldness with the drug Propecia without properly warning him of the consequences, and that the defendants Merck Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. ("Merck"), which are non-California corporations, are liable in strict liability and related claims for manufacturing and distributing Propecia. The very general, boilerplate complaint has three causes of action. The first alleges negligence against (a) the California defendants in their treatment of his condition (apparently, male pattern baldness, although the complaint only says "condition"), including failure to advise him of the risks of the treatment they gave him; and (b) Merck for defective design and inadequate warning about the drug Propecia. The second cause of action is exclusively against Merck for strict liability, failure to test, and failure to warn about Propecia. The third cause of action is against Merck for breach of express and implied warranties in administering Propecia to him without disclosing that it was not safe. As a result of this, Michelson alleged that he has a "high risk for both transient and irreversible ED" (erectile dysfunction). Merck removed the case to the Central District of California based on diversity jurisdiction, alleging in its notice of removal that the citizenship of the California defendants should be disregarded because they were "improperly joined," in that the claims against them "involve entirely separate factual and legal theories of liability." Merck therefore contended that the California defendants could be severed and remanded to state court under the doctrine of "procedural misjoinder." Judge Cogan, however, concluded that unless a plaintiff's claim against a non-diverse party fails as a matter of law, or must be severed as a matter of state law, making the joinder of that claim with the claim against the diverse party improper, the case is not removable. Judge Cogan found that neither of those situations obtains in this case. A full-text copy of Judge Cogan's June 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/yS6fq3 from Leagle.com. Kyle Michelson, Plaintiff, represented by Ian I. Herzog, Herzog Yuhas Ehrlich and Ardell APC & Evan Marshall, HERZOG YUHAS EHRLICH & ARDELL. Richard Rassman, New Hair Institute Medical Group, Defendants, represented by Vincent P. D'Angelo -- vincent.dangelo@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, Joanna Marie Ronning Topping -- joanna.topping@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP & Juliann Safko O'Meara -- juliann.omeara@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. Jae P. Pak, Defendant, represented by Joanna Marie Ronning Topping, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. Merck Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles F. Morrow -- chip.morrow@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, pro hac vice. Merck & Co, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ben D. Whitwell -- bwhitwell@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Charles F. Morrow, Butler Snow LLP, pro hac vice & Celeste M. Brecht -- cmbrecht@venable.com -- Venable LLP. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Defendant, represented by Ben D. Whitwell, Venable LLP. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., .Defendant, represented by Celeste M. Brecht, Venable LLP. MDL 2437: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Ashton Woods' Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Ashton Woods Holdings LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USG Corp., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-1712, MDL No. 13-2437 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson granted the defendants' motions to dismiss as to all of the plaintiffs' claims to the extent those claims require proof of an agreement to raise prices in 2014 and 2015. The plaintiffs remain free to pursue all of their claims based on conduct occurring before this period. Judge Baylson, however, dismissed Continental Building Products from the litigation because all of the plaintiffs' claims against Continental Building Products are based on activity that occurred after the 2013 price increase. The judge also granted in part and denied, in part, Certain Teed Gypsum, Inc.'s Individual Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of Judge Baylson's June 22, 2016 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/m8bGML from Leagle.com. The suit is part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving allegations that domestic drywall manufacturers entered agreements to fix prices and eliminate job quotes, a form of price competition. There are currently two separate groups of cases proceeding simultaneously within the MDL. The first group is comprised of plaintiffs who filed class actions as direct or indirect purchasers of drywall. The second group is a single case brought by twelve plaintiffs, who are homebuilders. The first group is substantially farther along in the litigation process than the second. Notably, the homebuilder plaintiffs have access to all of the discovery taken in the class actions. On April 22, 2016, the defendants in the homebuilder case filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions asking the court to dismiss many of homebuilder plaintiffs' claims. Ashton Woods Holdings L.L.C., Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Company, Inc., Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., Kb Home, Meritage Homes Corporation, M/I Homes, Inc., Pulte Home Corporation, The Drees Company, Toll Brothers, Inc., Tri Pointe Homes, Inc., CalAtlantic Group, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by Brian Russell Strange -- bstrange@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Butler, Cindy Zone Reichline -- creichline@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Butler, John Theodore Ceglia -- jceglia@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Butler, Keith Lawrence Butler -- kbutler@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Butler & Morvareed Z. Salehpour -- msalehpour@strangeandbutler.com -- Strange & Butler. USG Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven E. Bizar -- steven.bizar@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Lester C. Houtz, Kirkland & Ellis, Philip S. Beck -- philip.beck@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Rebecca W. Bacon -- rweinstein.bacon@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Sharon Desh -- sharon.desh@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP & Sundeep Kumar Addy -- rob.addy@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP. New NGC, Inc., American Gypsum Company LLC, Defendants, represented by Steven E. Bizar, Dechert LLP & J. Mark Gidley -- mgidley@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP. LaFarge North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark W. Nelson -- mnelson@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Steven E. Bizar, Dechert LLP & J. Mark Gidley. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by J. Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP & Steven E. Bizar, Dechert LLP. Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley C. Weber -- bweber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Steven E. Bizar, Dechert LLP & Susan E. Adams -- suadams@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP. Certainteed Gypsum, Inc., Saint-Gobain Corporation, Defendants, represented by J. Mark Gidley. L&W Supply Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, Defendants, represented by Rebecca W. Bacon, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP. Pabco Building Products LLC, Defendant, represented by Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & J. Mark Gidley. MDL 2521: Oct. 26 Oral Argument on End-Payors' Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order in the case, In re: LIDODERM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2521, Master File No. 14-md-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.), scheduling oral argument for: Date: October 26, 2016 Time: 3 p.m. Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor relating to the End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QInRYmNZ MICHAELS STORES: 9th Cir. Reverses Denial of Motion for Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon and Senior District Judge George C. Steeh of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed a district court's order denying Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAELS STORES INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14-56726 (9th Cir.). Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Michaels Stores, Inc. for failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 510(a) and 1194, failure to provide accurate wage statements, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226(e), failure to pay all wages due, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 203, and engagement in unfair competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq. The district court denied Michaels's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On appeal, Michaels contends that the claims of Plaintiffs- Appellants Lisa Anderson and 24 other claimants are barred by the statutes of limitation. In the Memorandum dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/gQCUZ5 from Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit held that it was not "unforeseeable" that Anderson's section 17200 claims would not be certified in the second class action, and tolling these claims would not protect the class action device or effectuate the purposes of the statute of limitations. MICHIGAN, USA: Certification of Class Sought in "Hill" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled HENRY HILL, et al. v. RICK SNYDER, et al., Case No. 5:10-cv-14568-JCO-RSW (E.D. Mich.), filed with the Court their renewed motion for certification of a class consisting of all individuals, who are in Michigan Department of Corrections custody, who were convicted for first degree murder for offenses committed when they were below 18 years of age. Rick Snyder is the Governor of the state of Michigan. The Plaintiffs' complaint, filed on November 17, 2010, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to end the Defendants' alleged violation of their Eighth Amendment rights to a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release upon demonstration of their maturity and rehabilitation. The Plaintiffs, who were children when they committed offenses for which they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, challenged the constitutionality, as applied to all children, of Section 791.234(6) of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the statute that deprives the Michigan Parole Board of jurisdiction over individuals serving life sentences for first- degree homicide offenses. Absent class certification, the Defendants will continue to apply the unconstitutional parole statute to deny any meaningful opportunities for parole to children similarly situated to them, the Plaintiffs contend. Therefore, the Plaintiffs argue, class certification is both necessary and appropriate to ensure that others similarly situated to them benefit from the Court's orders in this matter. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WiNrLqFy The Plaintiffs are represented by: Deborah LaBelle, Esq. 221 N. Main St., Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 996-5620 E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com - and - Ronald J. Reosti, Esq. 23880 Woodward Ave. Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133 Telephone: (248) 691-4200 E-mail: ron.reosti@gmail.com - and - Michael J. Steinberg, Esq. Kary L. Moss, Esq. Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUNDOF MICHIGAN 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-6814 E-mail: msteinberg@aclumich.org dkorobkin@aclumich.org kmoss@aclumich.org - and - Steven M. Watt, Esq. Ezekiel Edwards, Esq. Brandon Buskey, Esq. HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7870 E-mail: swatt@aclu.org eedwards@aclu.org bbuskey@aclu.org The Defendants are represented by: Margaret A. Nelson, Esq. Ann M. Sherman, Esq. Christina M. Grossi, Esq. Joseph T. Froehlich, Esq. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, ELECTIONS & TORT DIVISION P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 373-6434 MO'S FISHERMAN: Court Rules on Conditional Cert. Bid in "Mendoza" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MELVIN MENDOZA, et al., On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MO'S FISHERMAN EXCHANGE, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH- 15-1427 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander granted in part and denied, in part, the plaintiffs' "Motion for Conditional Certification and to Facilitate Notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act." Specifically, Judge Hollander granted the portion of the Motion seeking certification of the collective case, dating from three years prior to the present, as to all hourly employees of the defendants' six restaurants. The judge, however, ordered that the notice must be revised, and a proposed notice for use on Facebook must be created and submitted to the court for approval. Finally, Judge Hollander required the defendants to produce the names, dates of employment, e-mail addresses, and last known mailing addresses of the potential collective members, as requested by the plaintiffs. A full-text copy of Judge Hollander's June 22, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/igyt3p from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs, Melvin Mendoza, Erick Rivera, and Armando Portillo, filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against Mo's Fisherman Exchange, Inc. and Mohammed S. Manocheh, doing business as Mo's Seafood Restaurant; Mo's Fisherman's Wharf; Mo's; Mo's Seafood Factory; Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory; and Mo's Neighborhood Bar and Grill. The plaintiffs alleged "willful failure" by the defendants "to pay Plaintiffs their wages, including minimum and overtime wages." They characterize the suit as both a collective action under the FLSA and "as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)." Four additional plaintiffs have since joined the suit, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). They are Douglas Edgardo Rivera; Wiliam Rivera; Samuel Gutierrez Guevara; and Edwin Amilcar Sosa Garcia. Melvin Mendoza, Erick Rivera, Armando Portillo, Douglas Edgardo Rivera, Wiliam Rivera, Samuel Gutierrez Guevara, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew David Freeman -- adf@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Brooke E. Lierman -- blierman@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein Levy,Jessica Paulie Weber -- jweber@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center & Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc. Edwin Amilcar Sosa Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke E. Lierman, Brown Goldstein Levy. Mo's Fisherman Exchange, Inc., Mohammed S. Manocheh, Defendants, represented by Andrew Marc Dansicker, Dansicker Law Firm. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Rules on Fee Bid in "Geoffrion" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied in part Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees, and Non-Taxable Expenses in the case captioned, DANIELLE GEOFFRION and DARREN KASMIR, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 4:14-CV-350 (E.D. Tex.). Plaintiffs allege to have sent Defendant Qualified Written Requests (QWRs) for information regarding their account and an accounting of all payments made on their mortgage account. Plaintiffs further allege Defendant violated the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act 12 U.S.C. 2605(a) (RESPA) because Defendant failed to provide information required by federal law. Plaintiffs also sued in equity to receive an accounting from Defendant. On September 10, 2015, the jury rendered a verdict finding that Plaintiffs submitted QWRs to Defendant on December 16, 2013, and on January 3, 2014. The jury found that Defendant failed to respond or provided an inadequate response to the QWR that Plaintiffs sent on January 3, 2014. The jury also found that Plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages caused by Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiffs' QWR. In the motion, Plaintiffs assert that "the case was a leanly- staffed in which every minute of work reflected on the timesheets of Plaintiffs' counsel was necessary and well-spent." Defendant argues that "because Plaintiffs dropped their breach of contract claim, they cannot recover attorneys' fees incurred to further it" and the calculation of hours reasonably spent on the RESPA claim must be significantly reduced. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs' counsel failed to demonstrate billing judgment. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/rIAGpg from Leagle.com, Judge Mazzant found that Plaintiffs' counsel has not produced sufficient evidence to support an award is a reasonable and necessary, and awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $106,254 and as for taxable costs the court found that the Plaintiffs' receipts provide sufficient documentation of the taxable expenses incurred and awarded the amount of $2,143.97 for taxable costs. Danielle Geoffron and Darren Kasmir are represented by Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Jr., Esq. -- jarrett@hughesellzy.com -- William Craft Hughes, Esq. -- craft@heghesellzy.com -- and Brian B. Kilpatrick, Esq. -- brian@hughesellzy.com -- HUGHES ELLZEY LLP Nationstar Mortgage LLC is represented by Walter Lewis Edmond McInnis, Esq. -- walter.mcinnis@ackerman.com -- Andrew Duncan Thomas, Esq. -- andrew.thomas@ackerman.com -- and Christopher Charles Townsend, Esq. -- christopher.townsend@ackerman.com -- AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP, Anne M. Johnson, Esq. -- anne.johnson@haynesboone.com -- and Nina Cortell, Esq. -- nina.cortell@haynesboone.com -- HAYNES & BOONE, LLP -- and David Stewart Clancy, Esq. -- sclancy@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP NEW YORK: Wells' Class Certification Motion Denied -------------------------------------------------- Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby entered an order in the lawsuit styled PETER WELLS, NATHANIEL JAY PATRICK JEANTY, DERRICK FULTON, ERIC MCCOY, WAYNE WASHINGTON, DERRICK CLARK, and GLENN T. SUDDABY, the Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al., Defendants, Case 9:16-cv- 00405-GTS-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), granting Wells's In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Application. Wells is an inmate at the Auburn Correctional Facility in New York. The Clerk shall provide the Superintendent of the facility that Wells has designated as his current location with a copy of Wells's inmate authorization form and notify that official that Wells has filed this action and is required to pay to the Northern District of New York the entire statutory filing fee of $350.00. Wells's motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice, and the Wells's motion for class certification is also denied. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=daZGdulh The Plaintiffs appear pro se. NEW YORK: Court Reinstates Pay & Benefits for Bearded Cop --------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Manhattan reinstated pay and benefits June 22, to the New York City police officer whose suspension this Ramadan inspired him to fight the department's beard policy. Masood Syed says he has sported a trim beard, in keeping with his Sunni Islamic faith, for his entire decade on the force. In 2011, the NYPD granted him a religious accommodation to keep his beard at 1-millimeter, but Syed says that an unwritten rule has always allowed him and other officers to grow theirs more than an inch. Syed requested formal permission for him and 37 other officers to keep their beards that length on Dec. 12, 2015. The department never replied to that request until it ordered Syed to shave or face suspension on June 20. Ramadan, a month of fasting for Muslims, began on June 6. After refusing the order on June 21, Syed was forced to surrender his badge and weapon, and ushered him out of NYPD headquarters at 1 Police Plaza in Manhattan. Syed told reporters today that a police escort paraded him out the door in front of him comrades, the day before his birthday and during the holiest month of the Islamic calendar. "It was extremely humiliating," Syed said this afternoon. "I felt insulted, frankly." The Pakistani-American filed a class action on behalf of hundreds of other Muslim officers. At the time of the press conference, Syed had emerged victorious from an emergency hearing seeking an injunction against the NYPD. U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel, who himself sported a salt-and- pepper beard and moustache, said he was "troubled" by how little information a city lawyer had about the NYPD's facial hair policy. The city's lawyer Michael Fleming endured extensive grilling about the department's policy during the roughly hourlong hearing. Fleming did not know, for example, whether an officer with a face rash would get a dispensation to let his beard grow longer than a millimeter with a doctor's note. "Under those circumstances, Your Honor, I don't," he acknowledged. Nor did Fleming know whether a Jewish officer in mourning would be able to observe the ritual of shloshim, which includes a month- long prohibition against shaving. Visibly frustrated, Judge Castel told the city lawyer: "Your client should furnish you with information about that." Syed's lawyer Joshua Moskovitz, from the firm Beldock Levine & Hoffman, had plenty of facts at his disposal. He told the court that he had an approximately 2-mm beard, calling it the average facial-hair length of a man who does not shave for a day. His adversary counsel Fleming quibbled that it probably varies upon the man. "My beard grow a little differently than Mr. Moskovitz's does," he said. The NYPD has been in Manhattan Federal Court before for failing to accommodate a religious beard. In 2013, the late U.S. District Judge Harold Baer found that the city violated the constitutional rights of an Orthodox Jewish officer named Fishel Litzman, who also refused to shave on First Amendment grounds. After Syed's attorney cited Litzman's case, city lawyer Fleming said: "It is my understanding that [Litzman] has different religious beliefs from the plaintiff." The distinction did not persuade Castel, who ordered the city to reinstate Syed's pay and benefits. Noting that Syed's beard was "at least this morning, neatly trimmed," the judge stopped short of sending the well-groomed officer back to his post, where he works as a law clerk for six administrative judges within the NYPD. A different federal judge, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe, will make that decision after a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for July 8. Before that time, Castel said, the NYPD must turn over information about the department's policy to Syed's legal team on an expedited basis. Syed will collect all of his salary and benefits until that time, and the department cannot take any adverse action against him. Syed, 32, looked happy and relaxed following the hearing. "I am very relieved, very happy, with the judge's decision," he said. Birthday celebrations will be spartan because of Syed's religious obligations. Syed told reporters that he will spend the day fasting. The NYPD justifies its facial hair restrictions on the fact that officers with beards sometimes have difficulty putting on the department's gas masks -- known as the MSA Millennium model respirator. But that would not appear to be a typical feature of Syed's legal work for the department. Syed spends his days advising the NYPD on how to lawfully enforce its policies. "I think the word is irony," his attorney Moskovitz said. Eager to get back to work, Syed said of being a police officer: "I love this job." NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AK: Convent's Class Cert. Bid Revived -------------------------------------------------------- Associate Judge Josephine Linker Hart of the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a circuit court's denial of Convent Corporation's motion for class certification and remanded the case in the case captioned, CONVENT CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; JOE SMITH, MAYOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DEBI ROSS, BETH WHITE, LINDA ROBINSON, MAURICE TAYLOR, STEVE BAXTER, BRUCE FOUTCH, MURRY WITCHER, AND CHARLIE HIGHT, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TOM WADLEY, DIRECTOR, CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND FELICIA McHENRY, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, APPELLEES, Case No. CV- 15-912 (Ark.). The North Little Rock City Council (Council) passed a resolution on February 25, 2013, condemning as a public nuisance a structure owned by Convent located at 6615 Highway 70 in North Little Rock. On March 27, 2013, Convent filed in the circuit court a notice of appeal from the resolution. On that same day, Convent filed a complaint for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and damages. Convent also sought a declaratory judgment that the City of North Little Rock's (City) ordinance relating to condemnation proceedings was unconstitutional. Further, Convent sought to enjoin the City not only from destroying Convent's property but also from destroying other properties that had been condemned by the City and enjoin the City from condemning any additional properties or taking any action to file or collect liens for the demolition of properties. Following the removal of the case to federal court and its subsequent return, Convent filed on May 17, 2014, a motion for a judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. On September 1, 2014, Convent filed its motion for class certification seeking to certify as a class all individuals who own property within North Little Rock and whose property had been condemned by the Council from March 27, 2009. In an order filed July 9, 2015, the circuit court denied Convent's motion for class certification. On appeal, Convent argues that the circuit court erred in denying its motion for class certification. Convent argues that the circuit court should have considered the exhibits attached to the motion for class certification as well as exhibits attached to other pleadings, including its motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. In her Opinion dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/TYMErw from Leagle.com, Judge Hart found that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Convent's motion solely on Convent's failure to present evidence at the hearing. Further, because the circuit court has not yet considered the elements of Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure relating to the certification of class actions, we must reverse and remand the case to the circuit court for consideration of the issue. Convent Corporation is represented by: Mickey Stevens, Esq. 720 W 6th Ave Pine Bluff, AR 71601-4079 Tel: (870) 850-6000 City of North Little Rock, et al. are represented by C. Jason Carter, Esq. -- carter@bmelaw.com -- and Daniel L. McFadden, Esq. -- Dmcfadden@foleyhoag.com NORTHWEST HOSPITAL: Sued for Allegedly Violating Charity Care Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Essex Porter, writing for KIRO7, reports that Seattle's Northwest Hospital has been hit with a class-action lawsuit claiming it turns patients over to collection agencies too quickly. The suit says those patients should be screened to determine whether they qualify for charity care. The lawyers at Columbia Legal Services say this lawsuit has implications statewide, because 30 percent of the state's population may qualify for charity care. Taxi driver Kamal Amireh told us he suffered from severe vertigo three years ago, so he went to the emergency room at Northwest Hospital. His lawsuit alleges the hospital sent his $3,500 bill to a collection agency before screening him to see if he qualified for a charity care discount. "They have been very tough for me, like, not cooperative, you know. They are not cooperative," Mr. Amireh said. "The collection agency proceeded to garnish his bank account and take wages that he really needed to provide for the basic necessities of life for his family," said lawyer Adam Berger. The class-action lawsuit seeks to cover every potential charity care patient in the Northwest Hospital service area. According to the complaint, that's roughly 134,000 people. In a statement, Northwest Hospital told KIRO 7 it didn't know about the allegations until the lawsuit was announced on June 21 and that it is investigating. The statement says the hospital provided more than $7.3 million in charity care in its last fiscal year. OCEAN DETAILING: "Burke" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Burke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocean Detailing USA Management, Inc., Russell Grande, individually, and Ira Hall, individually, Case No. 6:16-cv-00958-JA-GJK (M.D. Fla., June 2, 2016), seeks damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorney's fees and costs, against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of 80 hours per week. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, overtime compensation at a rate of no less than time and one-half regular rate of pay for the hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Ocean Detailing is a sublet auto detailing company, providing a full array of detailing services to auto dealers, throughout Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420 1414 Facsimile: (407) 425 3341 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Stuart Arthur Goldsteinm Esq. STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P.A. 7300 N Kendall Dr Ste 380 Miami, FL 33156-7839 Telephone: (305) 670-1222 Ext 1393 Facsimile: (305) 670 7065 E-mail: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net OXY USA: Court Decertifies Class in "Roderick" Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WALLACE B. RODERICK REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Wallace B. Roderick, Trustee, on behalf of itself and JOHN W. FITZGERALD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OXY USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 12- 1215-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), Judge Eric F. Melgren granted the defendant OXY USA, Inc.'s motion to decertify the plaintiff class of royalty owners that was previously certified by the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas. A full-text copy of Judge Melgren's June 22, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/ucFHTs from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs, Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust and John W. Fitzgerald, owned royalty interests in wells from which OXY produced and marketed gas and its constituent products. The plaintiffs claimed they were underpaid in royalty fees by OXY. Before the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas certified a plaintiff class of royalty owners that comprises approximately 1600 wells and 2200 leases. OXY now moved to decertify the class, asserting specifically that the plaintiffs do not satisfy the commonality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) or the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b). Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, John W. Fitzgerald, Amanda Roderick, Plaintiffs, represented by Barbara C. Frankland -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Rex A. Sharp - - rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA. OXY USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa T. Silvestri -- lsilvestri@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals, pro hac vice, Marcia A. Wood -- mawood@martinpringle.com -- Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP, Oliver S. Howard -- ohoward@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals, pro hac vice, Stanford J. Smith, Jr. -- sjsmith@martinpringle.com -- Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP & William Rick Griffin -- wrgriffin@martinpringle.com -- Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP. PANASONIC CORP: Judge Spots No Reason to Seal Complaints -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE RESISTORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 5:15- cv-03820-RMW (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Ronald M. Whyte rejects the administrative motions to seal the Direct and Indirect Purchasers' consolidated class action complaints. A copy of the decision dated June 22, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/jeQSfL from Leagle.com Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), parties moving to seal documents must attach a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material which lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed, and an unredacted version of the document that indicates by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version. The court directed plaintiffs to refile unredacted copies of their consolidated class action complaints, which will be publicly accessible, within seven days of the date of the Court's order. * * * On June 24, 2016, two days after the Court entered its Order, the Plaintiffs filed copies of their Amended Complaints: 1. Amended Complaint against HDK America, Inc., Hokuriku Electric Industry Co., KOA Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd., Kamaya Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, ROHM Co. Ltd., Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC. Filed by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. 2. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against HDK America, Inc., HDK Micro Devices Co., Ltd., Hokuriku Electric Industry Co., KOA Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd., Kamaya Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Electronic Devices Co Ltd, ROHM Co. Ltd., Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd, Sanyo North America Corporation. Filed by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. 3. Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against KOA Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Electronic Devices Co Ltd, ROHM Co. Ltd., Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd, Sanyo North America Corporation, Hokuriku Electric Industry Co., HDK Micro Devices Co., Ltd., HDK America, Inc., Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd., Kamaya Inc.. Filed by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. Panasonic Corporation, et al., Defendant, represented by Ian L. Papendick -- ipapendick@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Brandon W. Duke -- bduke@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Erica Carolyn Smilevski -- esmilevski@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Eva W. Cole -- ewcole@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice. KOA Corporation, et al., Defendant, represented by Jason C. Murray -- jmurray@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP. KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Zelenko -- dzelenko@crowell.com -- U.S. Dept. of Justice, pro hac vice, Emily Tomoko Kuwahara -- ekuwahara@crowell.com -- Crowell and Moring LLP, Jordan Lee Ludwig -- jludwig@crowell.com -- Crowell and Moring LLP, Katie Michelle Yablonka -- kyablonka@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP & Robert Brian McNary -- rmcnary@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP. ROHM Co. Ltd., et al., Defendant, represented by Michael Frederick Tubach -- mtubach@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke -- korourke@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara T. Sicalides -- sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Joseph Boland -- bolandd@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F. Fitzpatrick -- fitzpatt@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP. Yageo America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jason Sheffield Angell -- jangell@fawlaw.com -- Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Jessica Nicole Leal -- jleal@fawlaw.com -- Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP & Robert E. Freitas -- rfreitas@fawlaw.com - - Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP. AVX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce Douglas Sokler -- BDSokler@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, pro hac vice. TDK-EPC Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Clayton Everett -- clay.everett@morganlewis.com -- Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Park Chiu -- michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Scott A. Stempel -- scott.stempel@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice. PEOPLES UNITED: Faces "Casseres-Pinto" Suit in S.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Peoples United Financial, Inc. The case is captioned Jose Casseres-Pinto, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ariel Quiros, William Stenger, Peoples United Financial, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Peoples United Bank, a Delaware corporation, Raymond James Financial, Inc., doing business as Raymond James, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Joel Burstein, the Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-22209-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Darrin P. Gayles. People's United is a savings and loan holding company incorporated under the state laws of Delaware that owns People's United Bank, a federally chartered stock savings bank in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Marie Zeman, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 3711 Sheridan Ave. Miami Beach, FL 33140 Telephone: (510) 350 9721 Facsimile: (510) 350 9701 E-mail: amyzeman@classlawgroup.com PLAIN GREEN: Appeals to 2nd Cir. From Ruling in "Gingras" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Joel Rosette, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Plain Green LLC; Ted Whitford, official capacity as a member of Plain Green's Board of Directors; and Tim McInerney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gingras, et al. v. Rosette, et al., Case No. 15-cv-101, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont (Rutland). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24, 2015, the Plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit that Plain Green LLC is exploiting and extorting its borrowers through predatory lending in violation of federal trade and consumer laws. Plain Green charges annual interest rates of up to 379 percent for its loans, which are typically used by low-income borrowers in need of emergency cash, the complaint said. The Company is owned by Montana's Chippewa Cree Tribe, which uses the tribal- sovereignty doctrine to ignore states' laws that cap interest rates on payday loans. The appellate case is captioned as Gingras, et al. v. Rosette, et al., Case No. 16-2019, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The other Defendants are Think Finance, Inc., TC Loan Service, LLC, Kenneth E. Rees, former President and Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Think Finance, TC Decision Sciences, LLC, Tailwind Marketing, LLC, Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, and Technology Crossover Ventures. Plaintiffs-Appellees Jessica Gingras and Angela C. Given are represented by: Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. GRAVEL AND SHEA PC 76 Saint Paul Street P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402 Telephone: (802) 658-0220 Facsimile: (802) 658-1456 E-mail: mbyrne@gravelshea.com Defendants-Appellants Joel Rosette, Ted Whitford and Tim McInerney are represented by: Richard Joseph Zack, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 2 Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4726 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: zackr@pepperlaw.com PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: July 11 Oral Argument on Motions to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied a motion to consolidate in the case captioned, IN RE PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:15-CV-02404 (S.D. Tex.). The putative class members in this federal securities action are investors in Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline, LP (Plains), a crude-oil pipeline operator. On May 19, 2015, Line 901 -- a 10.6-mile long Plains pipeline across the Santa Barbara, California coast -- ruptured and released crude oil. The defendants are Plains; Plains Holdings, a limited partnership formed to own an interest in Plains's general-partner and incentive-distribution rights; officers and directors at the two companies; and underwriters associated with public offerings of the shares. The plaintiffs allege that Plains made misrepresentations about the measures taken to prevent such an occurrence before the spill and after the spill about the extent of the release. They seek damages for the decline in the value of Plains stock. Alfred Davis moved to consolidate this putative class action with a derivative action he filed on Plains's behalf for breach of fiduciary duty. Davis's case is Civil Action No. 15-3632. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the case oppose consolidation. In the Memorandum and Order dated May 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/FDcmaH from Leagle.com, Judge Rosenthal held that consolidation under Rule 42 is premature at the time, subject to reurging if the actions sought to be consolidated survive the motions to dismiss. The court sets oral argument on the motions to dismiss in the case for July 11, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System is represented by Roger Farrell Claxton, Esq. -- roger@claxtonlaw.com -- LAW FIRM OF ROGER F. CLAXTON Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit is represented by Gerald H. Silk, Esq. -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jake Nachmani, Esq. -- jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com -- and Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq. -- jeremy@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP, Thomas Robert Ajamie, Esq. -- tajamie@ajamie.com - - AJAMIE LLP; and Luke O. Brooks, Esq. -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP IAM National Pension Fund is represented by Andrew M. Edison, Esq. -- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON, LLP, Angel P. Lau, Esq. -- alau@rgrdlaw.com -- Ashley M. Price, Esq. -- aprice@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle S. Myers, Esq. -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. -- dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- and Luke O. Brooks, Esq. -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP City of Warren Police & Fire Retirement System is represented by Luke O. Brooks, Esq. -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is represented by Craig Eric Zieminski, Esq. -- czieminski@velaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Johnston, Esq. -- jjohnston@velaw.comc -- and Michael C. Holmes, Esq. -- mholmes@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS BB&T Securities, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy N. LeRoy, Esq. -- tleroy@sidley.com -- and Robin Wechkin, Esq. -- rwechkin@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP PLS DIABETIC: Class Certification Sought in Podiatry Case --------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit titled PODIATRY IN MOTION, INC, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiffs, v. PLS DIABETIC SHOE COMPANY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1- 10, the Defendants, Case No: 16-cv-06444 (N.D. Ill), asks the Court to enter an order determining that this action may proceed as a class action against the Defendant. Plaintiff defines the classes as follows: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; The Count I Class consists of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant PLS Diabetic Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice. For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; The Count II Class consists of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant PLS Diabetic Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice. For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels; The Count III, IV & V class consists of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant PLS Diabetic Shoe Company, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice. 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=RwMsKRjQ The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman Cathleen M. Combs James O. Latturner EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 Web site: http://www.edcombs.com POST: Faces Class Suit Over Shredded Wheat 'All Natural' Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that packaged foods behemoth Post lies about its Shredded Wheat products being "100% natural" while they actually contain a cancer-causing chemical, a California class action alleges in federal court. Lead plaintiff Andy Wu claims Post markets Shredded Wheat as "100% natural whole-grain wheat" to capitalize on consumers' desire for healthier food even though it knows its wheat contains glyphosate, a "potent biocide" that the World Health Organization flagged last year as a potential human carcinogen that may cause kidney and liver damage. When Wu filed his complaint on June 22, Post faced similar allegations in a product liability class action in New York federal court and a consumer protection suit in Washington, D.C.'s superior court. Back in 2009, the food company was sued along with Procter & Gamble, Frito-Lay, Kellogg's and others in Los Angeles Superior Court for failing to tell consumers that its products contain acrylamide, another suspected carcinogen. "Post knows that consumers seek out and wish to purchase whole, natural foods that do not contain chemicals, and that consumers will pay more for foods that they believe to be natural," Wu said in the complaint. "Post has profited enormously from its fraudulently marketed products and its carefully orchestrated label and image." Agricultural giant Monsanto developed glyphosate, which the complaint cites as the world's most popular herbicide, and has marketed it under the notorious "Roundup" moniker since the 1970s. In April, France's health and safety agency announced it would ban weed killers containing glyphosate and tallowmine, a compound added to glyphosate-based herbicides to enhance their strength. Last year, the European Food Safety Agency found that combining glyphosate with other chemicals was more dangerous to human health than glyphosate alone. Monsanto called the recent assessments of glyphosate's safety political. "This result was reached by selective 'cherry picking' of data and is a clear example of agenda-driven bias," said Monsanto's Chief Technology Officer Dr. Robb Fraley in a statement last year after WHO classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. Wu's complaint claims Post sprays glyphosate on its wheat just before harvesting to dry it out, a practice encouraged by Monsanto that isn't necessary to a successful harvest. Drying wheat with glyphosate only serves to increase crop yields and, in turn, profits, Wu said. Wu seeks to represent a class of everyone who bought Shredded Wheat in the U.S. and a subclass of those who bought Shredded Wheat in California. He is suing for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty, along with violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Wu wants Post to disclose the presence of glyphosate in Shredded Wheat and to launch an advertising campaign informing consumers that it isn't completely natural. "Glyphosate is a dangerous substance, the presence and health effects of which should be disclosed," Wu said. The class is represented by Michael Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski in San Francisco and Beth Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- and Erika Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- of Terrell Marshall Law Group in Seattle. Neither Wu's attorneys nor Post returned phone and email requests for comment on June 24 morning. PREMIER OFFICE: Faces "Peguero" Suit in S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against PREMIER OFFICE CENTERS. The case is titled AHIXZA Z. PEGUERO, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER OFFICE CENTERS, doing business as: PREMIER BUSINESS CENTERS, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and JEFFREY REINSTEIN, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22207-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Jose E. Martinez. Premier Office is a privately held executive suite and office rental company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Waynice Amoii Green, Esq. Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 E-mail: waynicea.green@gmail.com pmh@rgpattorneys.com QUALITY RESOURCES: Faces "Pierluca" Suit in M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Quality Resources, Inc. The case is captioned Mario Pierluca and Marcus Holmes, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quality Resources, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Cheryl R. Mercuris, an individual, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01580- JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. James S. Moody, Jr. Quality Resources operates as a performance-based customer acquisition marketing services provider. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan D. Barack, Esq. Michelle E. Nadeau, Esq. KWALL, SHOWERS, BARACK & CHILSON, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, FL 33755 Telephone: (727) 441 4947 Facsimile: (727) 447 3158 E-mail: rbarack@ksbclaw.com mnadeau@ksbclaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: $2.35MM Settlement in Emmons Has Initial Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DOROTHEA EMMONS and LISA STAPLETON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, doing business as QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED OF NEVADA, a Nevada corporation; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS NOCHOLS INSTITUTE, a California corporation; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:13-cv-00474-DAD- BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd granted the motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement filed by the plaintiffs, Dorothea Emmons and Lisa Stapleton. The proposed settlement seeks a gross settlement amount of $2,350,000.00. After deducting the requested attorney's fees and costs, settlement administration costs, payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and the class representative enhancement payments, the class members will net $1,495,667.00. The plaintiffs estimate each class member will receive approximately $575.00. Judge Drozd approved the plaintiffs as class representatives, confirmed Capstone Law APC as class counsel, and approved Simpluris, Inc. as settlement administrator. A full-text copy of Judge Drozd's June 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/nP1Bar from Leagle.com. Dorothea Emmons, Lisa Stapleton, Plaintiffs, represented by Bevin Elaine Allen Pike -- bevin.pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Robert J. Drexler -- robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, Defendants, represented by Erica C. Parks, Sidley Austin LLP, Jonathan M. Brenner, Sidley Austin LLP & Aimee Grace Mackay -- amackay@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP. Quest Diagnostics Inc., Defendant, represented by Aimee Grace Mackay, Sidley Austin LLP. RAYONIER INC: Must Defend Against Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied defendants' motions to dismiss in the case captioned, In re Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-CV-1395-J-32JBT (M.D. Fla.). In the consolidated private securities fraud class action, Defendants Rayonier, Inc., Lynn Wilson, Hans Vanden Noort, and Paul Boynton move for the second time to dismiss the case on the grounds that Lead Plaintiffs Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund have failed to adequately plead their claims under the various applicable pleading standards. The Court earlier granted Defendants' first motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and allowed Lead Plaintiffs leave to amend. Defendants argue that Lead Plaintiffs have again failed to adequately plead that the allegedly fraudulent statements were false or misleading when made and were made with scienter. Lead Plaintiffs respond that they have more than met their heightened pleading obligations. In his Order dated May 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/dGsimP from Leagle.com, Judge Corrigan found that Lead Plaintiffs have met those pleading standards and even taking into account the heightened pleading standards under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Mary Sating isrepresented by Francis P. McConville, Esq. -- fpmcconville@pomlaw.com -- Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. -- jagoldstein@pomlaw.com -- and Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS, LLP and Peretz Bronstein, Esq. -- peretz@bgandg.com -- BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC Samuel Keasler is represented by: Christopher Stephen Polaszek, Esq. THE POLOSZEK LAW FIRM, PLLC 201 One Tampa City Ctr, Ste 700 Tampa, FL 33602-5138 Tel: (813) 223-5505 Lake Worth Firefighters Pension Trust Fund is represented by Avi Josefson, Esq. -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Brandon Marsh, Esq. - Brandon@blbglaw.com -- David Ronald Stickney, Esq. -- david@blbglaw.com -- Gerald H. Silk, Esq. -- Gerald@blbglaw.com -- and Jonathan Daniel Uslaner, Esq. -- jonathan@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, Lester R. Hooker, Esq.; Maya S. Saxena, Esq. -- msaxena@saxenawhite.com -- SAXENA WHITE, PA; and Robert D. Klausner, Esq. -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON Rayonier Inc. is represented by Charles M. Trippe, Jr., Esq. -- cmtrippe@mppkj.com -- and Joni Alexis Poitier, Esq. -- JAPoitier@mppkj.com -- MOSELEY, PRICHARD, PARRISH, KNIGHT & JONES, Janine Cone Metcalf, Esq. -- jmetcalf@jonesday.com -- and Michael J. McConnell, Esq. -- mmcconnell@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY Paul G. Boynton is represented by Christopher Ryan Maloney, Esq. -- cmaloney@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP, Jeffrey R. Wang, Esq. -- jwang@fklaw.com -- FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN, LLP, Janine Cone Metcalf, Esq. -- jmetcalf@jonesday.com -- and Michael J. McConnell, Esq. -- mmcconnell@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY REDDY ICE: Settlement in "Brown" FLSA Case Approved --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, KENNETH BROWN, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. REDDY ICE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:14CV1786 RLW (E.D. Mo.), District Judge Ronnie L. White of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that: -- the Commissions Plus Day Rate Class and Service Technician Class are certified in this FLSA collective action for settlement purposes. -- Plaintiffs Consent Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement Filed under Seal is granted. -- within 30 days after the completion of payments, the parties shall file a joint stipulation of dismissal. The case was brought under Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. (FLSA), and, as such, any settlement must be approved by the Court. Plaintiff Kenneth Brown moved for conditional certification, Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiffs filed a reply brief. However, the parties reached a settlement before the Court addressed the pending motion. In considering whether the Plaintiffs are similarly situated for purposes of certification under the first step, the Court applies a lenient standard and finds that the two proposed classes, the Commissions Plus Day Rate Class and the Service Technician Class meets the criteria of this step. The parties contend that the proposed classes contain similarly situated individuals warranting certification for settlement purposes. In his Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/3elUBh from Leagle.com, Judge White approved the proposed agreement because the settlement is fair and equitable to both parties. Kenneth Brown, Jr. Esq. represented by Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. -- Kevin@dolleylaw.com -- Jason M. Finkes, Esq. -- jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com -- and Laura Spencer Garth, Esq. -- laura.garth@dolleylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC Reddy Ice Corporation, Defendant, represented by Heather M. Lake, Esq. -- hlake@constangy.com -- and John Hunter Johnson, Esq. -- hjohnson@constangy.com -- CONSTANGY AND BROOKS, LLP REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint in the case captioned, ANDREW M. STEIN, et al. (15-5903); CANALE FUNERAL DIRECTORS, INC., et al. (15-5905), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN SELECT HIGH INCOME FUND, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-5903, 15-5905 (6th Cir.). Andrew M. Stein, Stein Holdings, Inc., Stein Investments, LLC, (collectively, the Stein Plaintiffs), Warren Canale, and Canale Funeral Directors, Inc., (collectively, the Canale Plaintiffs), invested and lost significant amounts money in five investment funds: the Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc., the RMK High Income Fund, the RMK Advantage Income Fund, the RMK Strategic Income Fund, and the RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund, all of which are named as Defendants in the action. On October 25, 2013, the Stein Plaintiffs and the Canale Plaintiffs each filed nearly identical six-count complaints in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, as well as common-law vicarious liability for violations of all these statutes and regulations. In September 2014, after Defendants moved to dismiss both actions on a variety of grounds, the district court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions to dismiss in nearly identical orders, in which it held that Plaintiffs' claims were not untimely under the applicable statutes of limitations and repose, and were not barred by res judicata. Defendants moved for reconsideration in both cases, arguing that the district court had improperly held that Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2005), was no longer binding precedent, and Wyser-Pratte obligated the district court to find that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. Applying Wyser- Pratte, the district court granted the motions for reconsideration in both cases and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims in full on July 31, 2015 on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue vehemently that Wyser-Pratte is not binding on the Court because it constitutes an improper limitation of Supreme Court doctrine, represents the minority rule, and was wrongly decided. In his Opinion dated May 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/vLmLxJ from Leagle.com, Judge Clay held that if the repose periods began to run before October 25, 2010 for the Securities Act claims and October 25, 2008 for the Securities Exchange Act claims, Plaintiffs' claims are barred are in their entirety. Unquestionably, they did -- the non-fund Defendants turned over management of the closed-end funds at some point in July 2008, and the complaints allege no misconduct whatsoever by any Defendant after that date. Plaintiffs' claims are thus time- barred by the statutes of repose. Andrew M. Stein, et al. are represented by H. Naill Falls, Jr., Esq. -- nf@fallsveach.com -- FALLS & VEACH Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc., et al. are represented by Peter Sean Fruin, Esq. -- pfruin@maynardcooper.com -- and Kathryn Roe Eldridge, Esq. -- keldridge@maynardcooper.com -- MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C., Kevin C. Logue, Esq. -- kevinlogue@paulhastings.com -- and Kevin P. Broughel, Esq. -- kevinbroughel@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP, Britt K. Latham, Esq. -- blatham@bassberry.com -- and Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Esq. -- jcrace@bassberry.com -- BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Faces "Mendlowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau Inc. The case is captioned Blimie Mendlowitz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau Inc., doing business as: American Medical Collection Agency, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-03136 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2016). Retrieval-Masters is a recovery agency for Consumer collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com RUTHERFORD COUNTY: T.H. Files Suit v. Board of Education -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Rutherford County Board of Education. The case is captioned T.H., a minor child; S.M. as parent and next friend, and individually; J.D., a minor child; T.D.; K.D., as parents and next friends, and individually; and persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rutherford County Board of Education, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01367 (M.D. Tenn., June 15, 2016). The Assigned District Judge is Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. Rutherford County is a county located in the U.S. state of Tennessee. Board of education is the board of directors or board of trustees of a school, local school district or higher administrative level. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin S. Gilbert, Esq. Jessica F. Salonus, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC (FRANKLIN TN OFFICE) 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354 1144 Facsimile: (731) 664 1540 E-mail: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com jsalonus@gilbertfirm.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Aug. 25 Case Management Conference Set -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that a Case Management Conference shall be held on August 25 in the case, KAREN L PURDY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02693-PJH (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the order issued on June 9, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/F7C0QM from Leagle.com. 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. Select Portfolio Services, Inc., et al., Defendant, represented by Connor Woolsey Olson -- connor.olson@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Defendant, represented by Ashley Fickel -- afickel@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP & Christopher David Lee -- clee@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, LLP. SEQUOIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Chein" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Sequoia Financial Services. The case is captioned Chana Tela Chein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Sequoia Financial Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03135- ARR-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Allyne R. Ross. Sequoia Financial is a Los Angeles debt collection service specializing in receivables management for health care, subrogation, litigation, and utilities collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com SILVER WHEATON: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Ian Gamble, Esq. -- gamble@thor.ca -- of Thorsteinssons LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in the recent US case of In Re Silver Wheaton Corp. Securities Legislation, CV15-5146-CAS(JEMx) C/W: CV15-5173-CAS(JEMx), June 6, 2016, the US District Court denied a motion by Silver Wheaton Corp. (SW) and three of its executives (the defendants) to dismiss a class action commenced against them. The class action relates to the recent international tax audit of SW by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), in which the CRA proposed to add C$715 million to SW's income and impose transfer pricing penalties of C$72 million. To defeat the motion, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate factual allegations above the speculative level in relation to, among other things, (1) a material misrepresentation or omission and (2) scienter (being a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud). The Court found that the plaintiffs met this minimum legal standard on both elements. Here are some interesting points (and principles) from the decision: The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false or misleading statements by either (a) failing to record and recognize a tax liability on SW's balance sheets or (b) failing to disclose a contingent tax liability in SW's financial statements. The Court found that whether the defendants were required to disclose a tax liability under the applicable accounting standards (i.e., GAAP and IFRS) did not depend on whether the Canadian tax courts would ultimately affirm the CRA's reassessment (see page 13). Rather, the defendants were required first to assume that the CRA would audit SW's transfer pricing position, and then determine whether it was more likely than not (i.e. more than 50% chance) the CRA would find that SW owed additional income taxes and penalties. The Court went on to find that even if the defendants were not required to record a tax liability, they were required under GAAP and IFRS to disclose a contingent tax liability unless the possibility that the CRA would reassess SW was remote. If such a possibility was not remote, the defendants were required to disclose a contingent liability and estimate the amount of the potential tax reassessment. On these points the Court concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly demonstrated that the defendants' reports to the SEC did not comply with GAAP and IFRS, and as such, the reports contained false and misleading information about SW's financial position. On the issue of scienter, the Court found a strong inference that the defendants knew or had reason to suspect that a CRA reassessment was possible, if not probable, and yet they took no efforts to incorporate this fact into SW's financial statements. A clean audit opinion from SW's independent auditors and accountants was of no assistance on this issue, in part because of evidence that SW hid information from them. SLD DELI: "Mendez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SLD DELI GRILL INC. (d/b/a GRACIE'S CAFE), LAMBROS KREATSOULAS, STEVEN KREATSOULAS, and MICHAEL KREATSOULAS, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04409 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Mendez regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked over 40 each week. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants SLD Deli Grill Inc., Lambros Kreatsoulas, Steven Kreatsoulas, and Michael Kreatsoulas who own and operate Gracie's Cafe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com SONY CORP: Settles Class Suit Over PlayStation 3 for $7MM --------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that after six years of litigation, Sony agreed to settle a class action accusing it of misleading customers by saying the PlayStation 3 could run other operating systems. The consolidated class action began in April 2010, when several lawsuits claimed Sony lied about the PlayStation 3 being able to run a separate operating system, such as Linux, in addition to its built-in gaming operating system. While earlier models had that functionality, the "other OS" feature was wiped out by a software update on April 1, 2010, according to the lawsuits. Ten million PS3 units have been sold in the United States, ranging in price from $400 to $600, according to court filings. Sony introduced the PlayStation 4 in 2013. Under terms of the settlement, Sony will pay $55 to each class member who can show that he or she used a separate operating system on the PS3 before the feature was eliminated. Sony will also pay $9 to each class member who relied on Sony's claims about the "Other OS" functionality when they bought their gaming systems. The settlement sets a $2.25 million cap for attorneys' fees and provides $3,500 incentive awards for five named plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Anthony Ventura. Sony will use its PlayStation network database to email class members about the settlement. Advertisements about the deal will be posted on technology and gaming websites such as CNET and IGN.com. The notification plan should reach an estimated 77 percent of class members, according to the motion for preliminary settlement approval. Court documents do not indicate the total value of the settlement. If the $2.25-million attorneys' fees award were calculated as the traditional one-third of the projected settlement fund, Sony would pay about $6.75 million to settle the suit. Class attorney Rosemary Rivas and Sony attorney Luanne Sacks did not return phone calls about the settlement June 20. In 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the PS3 class action with prejudice, but the Ninth Circuit partly reversed in April 2014. Settlement talks that began in August 2015 were concluded last week after 10 months of negotiations. Last year, Sony settled another class action with Playstation users over a data breach that compromised more than 70 million accounts in May 2011. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the PS3 "Other OS" settlement will be held before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland on July 19. SOTERIA LOSS: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIE E. ROBINSON, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOTERIA LOSS PREVENTION FIRM, INC. and WOODROW TILLERY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01957-RWS (N.D. Ga., June 13, 2016), seeks declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages for Defendants' failure to pay federally mandated overtime wages to Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) during Plaintiff's employment with Defendants. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an amount of time that was more than 40 hours per workweek and was not paid the overtime wage differential required by FLSA. Soteria Loss is a mid-sized organization in the detective and armored car services industry located in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: PAUL J. SHARMAN, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242 5297 Facsimile: (678) 802 2129 E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Vacates Atty Fees Award in Voucher Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In Re: SOUTHWEST AIRLINES VOUCHER LITIGATION, Case No. 11 C 8176 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted Gregory Markow's motion for reconsideration and vacated the court's order of April 25, 2016 awarding class counsel fees. Markow, a class member, moved the court to reconsider its approval (in a reduced amount) of attorney's fees for class counsel for work done after the original fee award and on appeal. Markow argued that the court made legal errors in making the fee award. Markow also argued that notice should have gone out to the class prior to the approval of the supplemental fee award so that class members had an opportunity to object. Judge Kennelly vacated the fee award and ordered notice to be provided to the class regarding the request for fees. Judge Kennelly directed class counsel and Southwest to confer and to provide a proposed form of notice, as well as a proposal for the manner of giving notice, by no later than July 6, 2016. The judge gave Markow until July 13 to respond, and class counsel and Southwest until July 20 to reply. The case is set for a status hearing on August 8, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., though the court reserves the right to enter an order before that date approving a notice plan. A full-text copy of Judge Kennelly's June 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/1st4di from Leagle.com. Adam J Levitt, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Gregg M. Barbakoff -- gbarbakoff@mauricewutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher LLP, Gregory Wood Jones, Siprut Pc, Richard Lane Miller -- rmiller@siprut.com - - II, Siprut, PC & Stephen C. Jarvis, Wawrzyn LLC. Herbert C. Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg M. Barbakoff, Maurice Wutscher LLP. Herbert C. Malone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Wood Jones. Herbert C. Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Siprut PC,Richard Lane Miller, II, Siprut, PC & Stephen C. Jarvis, Wawrzyn LLC. Southwest Airlines, Co., Defendant, represented by Mitesh Bansilal Shah -- mshah@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.c., pro hac vice, H. Thomas Wells, Jr. -- twells@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.c., pro hac vice, Lorrie Lizak Hargrove -- lhargrove@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, Pc, pro hac vice & Michael William Drumke -- mdrumke@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell. SP AUSNET: Maurice Blackburn Quizzed Over Bushfire Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Pia Akerman, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm Maurice Blackburn has been forced to answer questions from victims of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires over its handling of a landmark $494 million settlement that is overdue and months from being paid out. Simmering concerns about management of the vast sum -- the largest in Australia's class-action history -- were aired in the Victorian Supreme Court as a group of survivors of the Kilmore East-Kinglake blaze put forward a detailed list of issues to judge Jack Forrest. Settlement for that class action -- which involved a fire sparked by a fallen powerline, that killed 119 -- was approved in December 2014, but no payments are likely until this year or early next year, with some victims' claims yet to be assessed. Maurice Blackburn is similarly administering the $300m payout for the Murrindindi-Marysville bushfire class action, which settled in February last year and was approved three months later. Kinglake survivor Vicki Ruhr called for information about record dividends paid to Maurice Blackburn's equity partners as the settlement money started to flow in. She also asked for an independent auditor's report on the firm's administration costs to be made public, and questioned why an interim payment could not be made to those whose claims had been assessed. "The bulk of them I think are questions that need to be answered," Justice Forrest said, thanking Ms. Ruhr. "It seems to me that a number of them were highly relevant to the way the scheme is administered." Maurice Blackburn's class-action head Andrew Watson said it was still possible victims might receive payments before the end of this year if certain timelines were met. "Rest assured, we are, and I am, particularly conscious of the need to ensure the payment is effected in the most timely manner possible," said Mr. Watson, who is charged with administering the settlement schemes. He said that while 78 people would share in $2m after successfully requesting an interim payment based on extraordinary need or compassionate grounds, a broader interim payment to victims would "distract" his team. Maurice Blackburn has so far reaped nearly $100m in fees from the class actions. Justice Forrest authorized a further $4.8m to be paid for work carried out since February this year. Strathewen survivor Denis Spooner told the court he had been forced to "jump through hoops" to receive a hardship payment from the scheme and he believed Mr. Watson had "abused his power" as administrator. Ms. Ruhr said some of the class-action members felt "almost ostracized", disappointed and distressed by the way the scheme had been handled and the lack of information. A further hearing has been scheduled for September. STARBUCKS CORP: Must Defend Against Underfilled-Latte Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco refused to dismiss fraud and false advertising claims accusing Starbucks of ripping off consumers by under-filling lattes by 25 percent. Californians Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles claim in court that Starbucks instituted a "standardized recipe" in 2009 that saves money on milk by under-filling lattes by 25 percent. The recipe allegedly applies to the coffee giant's Tall, Grande and Venti-sized lattes. "At its retail locations, Starbucks represents on its menu that its lattes contain '12 fl. oz.' for a Tall, '16 fl. oz.' for a Grande, and '20 fl. oz.' for a Venti," according to a 24-page complaint filed in March 2016. "However, Starbucks lattes are uniformly under-filled pursuant to a standardized recipe. . . Starbucks cheats purchasers by providing less fluid ounces in their lattes than represented." U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson said on June 17, that Strumlauf and Robles can advance a class-action lawsuit that seeks damages based on fraud and false advertising. Starbucks had filed a motion to dismiss the claims in April. "While it is certainly possible that consumers would understand that defendant's representation intended that the milk foam be part of the fluid ounce measurement, or understand that steamed milk takes up more space than cold milk, it is also possible that consumers would expect the serving cups to be slightly larger, such that the consumers would receive 16 ounces of the fluid portion of the latte when ordering a 'Grande,'" he wrote in June 17, 14-page order. He added that the alleged deception is implausible as a matter of law and that the case should go in front of a jury. "At this stage, the court finds it probable that a significant portion of the latte-consuming public would believe that a 'Grande' contains 16 ounces of fluid, measured without milk foam or in its cooled state," Henderson wrote. "If nothing else, it is probable enough that the issue should be decided by a trier of fact, not on a motion to dismiss." Strumlauf and Robles sued Starbucks Corporation for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of the state's Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Henderson granted Starbucks' motion to dismiss the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims. He said that the negligent misrepresentation claim is governed by the economic-loss doctrine, which states that tort recovery of economic damages "is barred unless such damages are accompanied by some form of harm to person or property, or the action falls under an exception." Henderson said that is not the case in the plaintiffs' underlying action. "Thus, in actions for negligence, liability is limited to damages for physical injuries and recovery of economic loss is not allowed," he explained. "There was no threat of physical harm as a result of defendant's actions, and no other special situations apply that would warrant finding an exception to the economic loss doctrine." The case captioned, SIERA STRUMLAUF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant., Case No. 16-cv-01306-THE (N.D. Cal.). STERLING JEWELERS: Settlement in "Tapia" Granted Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. Edward J. Davila entered an order in the class action lawsuit styled KATHYA TAPIA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STERLING JEWELERS INC., an unknown business entity; SIGNET JEWELERS LTD, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case 5:14-cv-00624-EJD (N.D. Cal.), granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. This Class is certified for settlement purposes only: "All former non-exempt, hourly employees of Ultra Stores, Inc., its successors and affiliates ("Ultra") who were hired by Ultra on or before June 14, 2013 and who were employed in an Ultra retail store in the State of California at any time on or after December 9, 2009, excluding any such employee who executed and did not revoke a full release of claims relating to or arising out of the Lawsuit for a settlement payment of $1,000.00, minus withholdings, pursuant to an individual settlement program offered by Sterling Jewelers Inc., the parent corporation of Ultra (i.e., the "Individual Settlement Program"). The Court also approved: -- payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of $1,000.00 as its share of the settlement of civil penalties in this case; -- the fees, expenses and any other costs of CPT Group, Inc. in administering the Settlement, in the amount of $7,500; -- the payment of Service Enhancements in the amount of $5,000 to be awarded to Plaintiff (in addition to any recovery that she may receive as a Class Member under the Settlement) in recognition for her efforts and the risks she undertook on behalf of the Class Members; -- the payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount not to exceed 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount, i.e. $93,323.50; and -- the payment of attorneys' costs to Class Counsel in the amount not to exceed $6,000. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ji02NPG3 The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961 Telephone: (949) 458 9675 Facsimile: (949) 458 9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com abl@quintlaw.com STRIPE A ZONE: "Nugent" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ GILFORD NUGENT, DALTON MCDERMOTT AND BRONTA WASHINGTON INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFFS v. STRIPE A ZONE, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:16- cv-00614-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages for themselves, and for all those similarly situated to them, that are required to be paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs alleged that they did not receive their wages or overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Specifically, Defendants failed to account for and pay Plaintiffs for all time spent where they were engaged in activities that were integral and indispensable to the principal activities being performed by Plaintiffs by working through their lunch hour, where said lunch hour was deducted from the pay of Plaintiffs. Stripe A specializes in pavement marking offering parking lot striping, pavement maintenance, seal coating and signs services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bob Whitehurst BOB WHITEHURST 5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, No. 363 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903)593 5588 SUNOCO INC: Appeals to 3rd Cir. From Ruling in "White" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Sunoco Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Donald White v. Sunoco Inc., Case No. 2-15- cv-04595, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8, 2016, District Court Judge Paul S. Diamond denied Sunoco Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation of the Case. The putative class action concerns the availability of a five-cent per gallon discount on fuel purchases made with a Sunoco Rewards Credit Card. Donald White proceeded against Sunoco, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Sunoco filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation, relying on the underlying Cardholder Agreement that purportedly requires the plaintiff to arbitrate any claims relating to his Sunoco Rewards Credit Card account. Judge Diamond concluded that the Agreement (and its arbitration clause) governs only the Plaintiff's relationship with Citibank, the card issuer. A full-text copy of Judge Diamond's May 24, 2016 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/jD7yOM from Leagle.com. The appellate case is captioned as Donald White v. Sunoco Inc., Case No. 16-2808, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee Donald White is represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com rhonik@golombhonik.com dstanoch@golombhonik.com Defendant-Appellant Sunoco Inc. is represented by: Kathryn E. Deal, Esq. Seamus C. Duffy, Esq. Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. Katherine L. Villanueva, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH 18th & Cherry Streets One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-3386 Facsimile: (215) 988-2757 E-mail: Kathryn.Deal@dbr.com Seamus.Duffy@dbr.com Meredith.Slawe@dbr.com Katherine.Villanueva@dbr.com SUNRUN INC: Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel Due July 26 ------------------------------------------------------- Carole Lee Greenberg and Sunrun Inc., et al., entered into a stipulation deferring defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), and vacating an August 5, 2016 initial case management conference. In this class action, plaintiff alleges Sunrun Inc., et al. violate federal securities laws. The Stipulation provides that Defendants will have no obligation to respond to the complaint until after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Counsel for the defendants will meet and confer with the court- appointed lead counsel within 14 days after the Court makes its appointment to discuss a schedule for the filing of any amended complaint and defendants' responses, including their currently anticipated motions to dismiss. Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel are due by July 26, 2016. The case is, CAROLE LEE GREENBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN INC., LYNN JURICH, BOB KOMIN, EDWARD FENSTER, JAMESON MCJUNKIN, GERALD RISK, STEVE VASSALLO, RICHARD WONG, BEAU PEELLE, EREN OMER ATESMEN, REGINALD NORRIS, WILLIAM ELMORE, FOUNDATION CAPITAL VI, L.P., FOUNDATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. VI, LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-2480-CRB (N.D. Cal.). District Judge Charles R. Breyer presides over the case. A copy of the court's decision dated June 8, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/7Ce6Wafrom Leagle.com. Sunrun Inc., et al., Defendant, represented by Anna Erickson White -- AVickery@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Robert L Webb -- rwebb@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Su-Han Wang -- swang@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. SUPREME PRODUCTION: Bid for Class Cert. Filed in "Kubala" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Trenton Schulze files a renewed motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit entitled TED L. KUBALA, Jr. and TRENTON SCHULZE, each individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SUPREME PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-00116 (S.D. Tex.). In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that Supreme failed to pay its Oilfield Employees overtime wages required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Putative Class Members generally perform these activities on behalf of Supreme's clients: (1) rigging up, (2) operating, (3) rigging down, (4) and working in the shop. All of this work involves intense manual labor, the Plaintiff says. Trenton Schulze seeks to allow his coworkers, who performed similar job duties and received similar pay, to receive notice about their right to participate in this collective action and stop the statute of limitations from running on their valuable back wage claims. Mr. Schulze also asks the Court to order Supreme to post the Notice and Consent forms in Supreme's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in period; order Supreme to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each Putative Class Member within 10 days of the Court's order; authorize a 60-day notice period for Putative Class Members to join the Case; and (9) order equitable tolling from the date of filing of his original motion, Oct. 2, 2015. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tc0ZXxQX The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com mparmet@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Telecopier: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - and - David L. Rumley, Esq. Jeffrey G. Wigington, Esq. WIGINGTON RUMLEY DUNN & BLAIR, LLP 123 North Carrizo St. Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 885-7500 Telecopier: (361) 885-0487 E-mail: drumley@wigrum.com jwigington@wigrum.com SWF OPERATIONS: Wins Final OK of "Kohler" Suit Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Mary S. Soriven entered an order in the lawsuit captioned KIMBERLY KOHLER, o/b/o herself and all similarly-situated individuals v. SWF OPERATIONS, LLC and DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-02568-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla.): (1) granting the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action; (2) approving the Parties' Settlement and Settlement Agreement with the exception of the cy pres recipient; (3) directing Defendant SWF to establish the non-reversionary Settlement Fund within 14 days from the date of the Order as provided in the Joint Motion; (4) directing that the non-reversionary Settlement Funds be distributed in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, except as otherwise directed in the Order. Specifically, the Settlement Funds will be distributed as follows: a. Defendant SWF must, within 14 days from the date the Settlement Fund is established, disburse to Named Plaintiff, Kimberly Kohler, $2,500 for her efforts in bringing about this Settlement; b. Defendant SWF must, within 14 days from the date the Settlement Fund is established, send settlement checks in the amount of $75 to each Class Member whom Defendant SWF was able to provide notice regarding the Settlement. In accordance with the Parties' stipulation in the Joint Motion, the Class Members will have 60 days from the date the checks are disbursed in which to cash their checks; c. The remaining Settlement Funds that are not disbursed on the foregoing date (i.e. $6,900, calculated as 92 undelivered notices to Class Members multiplied by $75 per Class Member) will be retained for a period of 60 days from the date the payments are disbursed to allow time for other Class Members who did not receive notice to come forward and assert their respective claims to the Settlement Funds; d. If individuals have not come forward or any checks have not been cashed at the expiration of the 60-day period, those remaining funds (i.e. the funds from the undelivered notices referenced in paragraph (c) plus the funds from any uncashed settlement checks) will within seven days be paid as a donation to the cy pres recipient: Bay Area Legal Services Inc. 1302 N. 19th Street, Suite 400 Tampa, Florida 33605-5230; and e. No later than seven days after Defendant SWF disburses the remaining proceeds to the cy pres recipient, the Parties must file their joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice concerning this matter. Therein, the Parties must advise the Court as to whom has been paid with respect to the Settlement Funds; (5) Defendant SWF must within 14 days from the date the Settlement Fund is established pay to Class Counsel $55,000 in attorneys' fees and costs as provided by the Settlement; (6) This case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending receipt of a final stipulation of dismissal. If no stipulation is filed and no motion to reopen the case is filed prior to 120 days from the date of this Order, the Court will, thereafter, dismiss this action with prejudice on its own motion; (7) The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions in this case; and (8) The Clerk is further DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the cy pres recipient, Bay Area Legal Services Inc., at the address noted above in section 4(d) of this Order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AKhkhACz TARGET CORPORATION: Sued Over Parmesan Cheese False Ad ------------------------------------------------------- RODNEY ZACHARY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06172 (E.D. Mo., June 13, 2016), seeks actual damages to be proven at trial, including all compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, as a result of Defendant's practices resulting in the Plaintiffs purchasing Target's Market Pantry branded "Parmesan 100% Grated Cheese" products without understanding the true content of Defendant's products or Defendant's omissions, suppressions, and/or concealment of material terms to increase its own ill-gotten profits. The Defendant advertised and sold millions of containers of its Market Pantry branded "Parmesan 100% Grated Cheese" products as "100%" Parmesan cheese. However, on information and belief, such products are not in fact "100%" Parmesan cheese, but rather contain significant amounts of adulterants and fillers. Further, on information and belief, the "100%" Parmesan cheese consists of cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent derived from wood pulp. Target is the second-largest discount retailer in the United States, behind Wal-Mart. The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Driscoll, Esq. Philip Sholtz, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 932 3232 Facsimile: (314) 932 3233 E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com phil@thedriscollfirm.com TIME WARNER: Wisconsin Judge Dismisses Privacy Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Rick Barrett, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports a U.S. district judge in Milwaukee has dismissed a lawsuit that accused Time Warner Cable of keeping subscribers' personal information after they ended their cable service. Derek Gubala, formerly of Oak Creek, claimed that Time Warner Cable kept personal identifiable information such as names and addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers and credit card accounts of former customers, in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act. The CCPA would provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. Mr. Gubala accused Time Warner Cable of putting former customers at risk of identity theft and other dangers. His lawyers wanted a class-action status for his lawsuit. On June 17, U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper dismissed the case, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in a case involving a Virginia man who sued the internet search firm Spokeo for posting false information about people. The Supreme Court said consumers could bring legal claims in such cases only if the information used by the company caused actual harm to the plaintiffs. Consumer rights advocates had sought a broader ruling that would let people sue without showing a real injury. Mr. Gubala, who now lives in Illinois, was represented by attorney Joseph Siprut of Chicago, who previously filed similar lawsuits in California against Time Warner Cable. At least one of those cases wound up in arbitration, the preferred method for companies to avoid potentially pricey, class-action lawsuits. "We will be appealing the court's order immediately," Mr. Siprut said on June 20. Time Warner Cable declined to comment. The lawsuit contended that, while the company's privacy policy indicates that subscribers' personal information is destroyed after it's no longer needed, the company actually keeps it all indefinitely. Mr. Gubala was a Time Warner Cable subscriber from 2004 to 2006, according to his suit, but when he called the company again in 2014, he learned it still had all his personally identifiable information on file. "There are numerous serious and troubling privacy issues implicated by TWC's practice of retaining and misusing their former customers' personal information, including the risk of identity theft and conversion of personal financial accounts," the suit noted. That kind of data "functions as a new form of currency that supports a $26 billion per year online advertising industry in the United States," according to the suit, and has growing value to each individual consumer. The Time Warner Cable decision was consistent with the Supreme Court ruling regarding Spokeo, said Ed Fallone, associate professor of law at Marquette University. "As I read Judge Pepper's opinion, it's a very straightforward application of what the Supreme Court was saying in Spokeo. The Supreme Court did make it clear that someone could be injured by the theft of intangible data, but there has to be a clear allegation of that, and I think it was missing in the (Gubala) complaint," Mr. Fallone said. "There are many other similar class-action lawsuits that have been recently dismissed by federal judges around the country, under the same rationale," he added. Congress could someday change the law, but for now, consumers should realize that their personal, identifiable information isn't private if they share it with a business. "I think once you give it to one company, it's pretty much out there," Mr. Fallone said. TRANSENTERIX INC: Sued in N. Car. Over Inflated Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHOK V. BANKLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSENTERIX, INC., TODD M. POPE, and JOSEPH P. SLATTERY, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv- 00313-BR (E.D. N. Car., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover damages, suffered by Plaintiff and the other Class members as a direct result of Defendants' fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of TransEnterix stock and the subsequent significant decline in the value of TransEnterix stock when Defendants' prior misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct were revealed, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Accordingly, claims are asserted against TransEnterix and certain of its officers and/or directors who made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period in press releases, analyst conference calls, and SEC filings. TransEnterix is a medical device company that seeks to use flexible instruments and robotics to improve the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery. The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Bruce McDaniel, Esq. Lafayette Square, Esq. McDANIEL & ANDERSON, L.L.P. 4942 Windy Hill Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 872 3000 Facsimile: (919) 790 9273 E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com - and - Jack Reise, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750 3000 Facsimile: (561) 750 3364 E-mail: jreise@rgrdlaw.com rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392 0090 Facsimile: (770) 392 0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com TRILLIUM HEALTH: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------- A proposed class action for a breach of privacy has been commenced against Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga Ophthalmologist Dr. Tony Vettese, and his assistant, Lisa Lyons. Mississauga businesswoman and Trillium patient Katie Mallinson has alleged that Lyons used her access to Trillium's entire database to secretly review the confidential medical records of Trillium patients for many years and hundreds of times. The class action characterizes Lyons as an electronic "Peeping Tom", who surreptitiously looked into the private lives of her victims, for her own amusement. Neither Mallinson nor Class Members are current patients of Vettese. Such records contain highly sensitive and private information about patients' medical histories. For example medications taken, treatments received, operations undergone, the diseases and disorders they may suffer from, and family circumstances, among others. The claim seeks $2 million in general damages as well as exemplary damages and punitive damages, plus individual awards for class members, costs and interest. The claim alleges that Trillium's privacy policies and procedures were inadequate, underfunded, and unenforced. It also contends that Dr. Vettese left Lyons to her own devices for hours at a time, and that despite being one of Ontario's top paid physicians he spent neither money nor time protecting the privacy interests of Trillium patients. The total number of patients affected is not yet known. Lyons was given unrestricted access to every record of every patient the hospital has ever treated. The Hospital's privacy office failed to detect any of Lyon's misconduct, and only began investigating when Ms. Mallinson reported her own suspicions of it. The claim also alleges that Trillium has conducted only a cursory internal investigation, and asks Ontario's Superior Court to appoint an auditor to determine the full extent of the breach of privacy. The allegations have not yet been proven in Court. Trillium has already admitted to Ms. Mallinson that her medical information was improperly accessed by Lyons for at least four years, and says that Lyons herself has acknowledged to it that she did so. The Plaintiff's counsel is the Mississauga litigation firm of Du Vernet, Stewart, who were successful counsel in the Ontario Court of Appeal case, which established the common law right to privacy in Ontario, Jones v. Tsige. Potential class action members who have already been advised by Trillium that their privacy has been invaded, or who suspect they have been victim of this privacy breach are asked to contact the firm for more information about the case. SOURCE DU VERNET, STEWART Barristers and Solicitors For further information: Media Contact: Christopher Du Vernet, Esq. B.A. (Hons.), M.A., LL.B., Ph.D. DU VERNET, STEWART, Barristers and Solicitors Telephone: 416-231-1668 Email: duvernet@duvernet.ca TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Sought in "La Crosse" ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled LA CROSSE COUNTY, WISCONSIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. AND TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00117-slc (W.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to certify this class: "All entities in the State of Wisconsin who purchased an ET- Plus End Terminal, not for resale, between February 25, 2009 and October 28, 2014 (the Class)." Plaintiff further requests that the Court designate it as class representative and appoint the law firms Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C. and Gustafson Gluek PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel. Plaintiff further requests that Hawks Quindel S.C. be appointed Liaison Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f3tAk1mL The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron N. Halstead, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL S.C. 222 W. Washington Ave., Suite 450 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 257 0040 Facsimile: (608) 256 0236 Email: ahalstead@hq-law.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496 8282 Facsimile: (215) 496 0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. Cathy K. Smith, Esq. Sara J. Payne, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com spayne@gustafsongluek.com TRUSTONE FINANCIAL: Bulger Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned ROY BULGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRUSTONE FINANCIAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-750 (E.D. Wisc.), asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6IDJOOMC The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com UDREN LAW: Pa. Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in "Glover" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Thomas Saylor of Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed a superior court order and remanded the matter for further proceedings in the case captioned, MARY E. GLOVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED FORMER AND CURRENT HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant, v. UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C., A NEW JERSEY DEBT COLLECTOR, Appellee, DELLA JOHNSON (A/K/A EDELLA ROBINSON, A/K/A EDELLA ROBINSON JOHNSON), ERIC JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED FORMER AND CURRENT HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, Appellants, PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP, Appellee, Case Nos. 3 WAP 2015, 4 WAP 2015 (Pa.). Mary Glover filed a putative class action against Udren Law Offices, PC (Udren) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging, inter alia, that Udren had violated Act 6 by charging unearned and excessive attorney's fees. Udren filed preliminary objections, asserting that Glover had failed to state an actionable claim. The common pleas court agreed, finding that Udren's conduct as a debt collector was governed by the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA). Glover appealed, arguing that, because Act 6 permits a borrower to recover treble damages from a "person" who collects excess fees in connection with the mortgage foreclosure process, and defines "person" broadly to "include but not be limited to" residential mortgage lenders, the common pleas court had improperly narrowed the scope of the statute's protections. A divided panel of the Superior Court affirmed, holding that, because Section 406's plain language regulates only the conduct of residential mortgage lenders, Section 502 does not authorize an action against a lender's counsel for a Section 406 violation. The majority reasoned that, had the Legislature intended Section 406 to reach law firms acting on behalf of residential mortgage lenders, it would have used express language to that effect in the text. On appeal, the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether a law firm, representing a residential mortgage lender in connection with foreclosure proceedings, can be liable to a borrower for attorney's fees charged in violation of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law. In his Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2016 available at https://is.gd/UIkq3z from Leagle.com, Judge Saylor held that the Superior Court majority's holding contravenes the core and conventional principle of statutory construction that, when a statute's terms are plain, the courts are bound to enforce them. UNITED FEDERAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Gunter Complaint Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned TONYA GUNTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, DOES 1-5 inclusive and ROE CORPORATIONS 6-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00483-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du denied the motion filed by the United Federal Credit Union (UFCU) to dismiss Tonya Gunter's amended complaint. Judge Du also ordered that Gunter's Notice of New Authority is stricken and that Gunther is granted leave to amend her amended complaint to include allegations that she was party to the Opt-In Agreement. A full-text copy of Judge Du's June 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/4Us9jJ from Leagle.com. Gunter filed a class action suit against UFCU alleging that the credit union had breached contracts and violated state law through its practice of charging overdraft fees to customers. UFCU moved to dismiss Gunter's complaint, and Gunter filed an amended complaint asserting a breach of contract claim and a claim for violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Tonya Gunter, Plaintiff, represented by Jae K. Kim -- jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro hac vice, James Strenio -- james@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm, APC, Richard D. McCune -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro hac vice, Taras Kick -- taras@kicklawfirm.com -- pro hac vice, Thomas A. Segal, The Kick Law Firm, APC, pro hac vice & Gregory G. Gordon, Gregory G. Gordon, Ltd.. United Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by James A. Kohl -- jkohl@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC & Robert W. Hernquist -- rhernquist@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC. UNITED SERVICE: Policyholders File Class Action Against Lawyers --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hammersly, writing for Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette, reports that more than a dozen lawyers who already face a federal judge's penalties tied to ethics violations in a class-action insurance lawsuit last year -- Adams v. USAA -- find themselves in another legal tangle involving the same case. Now, policyholders for the insurance company United Services Automobile Association have sued. The latest court action, Wartick v. USAA, alleges that 12 plaintiffs' lawyers and three who defended USAA worked together improperly last year to arrange the settlement in Adams v. USAA that played out in federal and state courts. One of the best-known plaintiffs' lawyers named in the suits is John Goodson of Texarkana, a state and national political campaign donor and a University of Arkansas System trustee. He is married to Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson. "The true people who had been harmed, the class members, were going home empty-handed by design," Little Rock attorney Robert Trammell said on June 21. Mr. Trammell's law firm filed Wartick v. USAA, 63CV-16-463, in Saline County Circuit Court on June 17. The three named plaintiffs, led by Kenneth Wartick of Benton, "wanted something done," Mr. Trammell said. The Adams case plaintiffs alleged that the USAA insurance company illegally depreciated labor costs in figuring claims for actual cash-value property damage, harming certain insurance policyholders. The case's settlement in Polk County Circuit Court in December primarily benefited the plaintiffs' attorneys and the insurance company, the Wartick filing says. The Wartick complaint alleges that the plaintiffs and defense lawyers worked as adversaries for about 17 months in Adams v. USAA in federal court presided over by Chief District Judge P.K. Holmes III of Fort Smith. But by June 19, 2015, lawyers for both sides had "secretly colluded in 'misleading conduct . . . acting with some degree of bad faith'" to file a dismissal of that federal case. They didn't inform Holmes of an "already-signed settlement document duly consummated in secrecy on June 16, 2015," the Wartick complaint says. "Defendants knew the tactic was 'improper,' 'misleading,' and 'with reckless indifference' thus implying bad faith." The proposed settlement included a long, difficult-to-read notice to class members; quick-pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees of $1.85 million; and a "cumbersome, annoying" claims process for policyholders to fill out before they could be paid anything by USAA for their losses, the Wartick complaint said. The plaintiffs' attorneys fees were more than 12 times higher than the damages paid to injured class members, the lawsuit said. The Wartick suit asks for compensatory and punitive damages from USAA and the 15 lawyers individually, and "in concert or as part of a conspiracy . . . for an abuse of process." The same 15 lawyers, plus one more from Arkansas, were scheduled for a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on June 24 before Judge Holmes. At issue is ethics violations related to their handling of the Adams v. USAA case, (2:14-cv-2013), in state and federal courts. In April, Judge Holmes notified the lawyers that he had decided to penalize them for "misleading conduct" that was "unequivocally improper" in moving Adams v. USAA in midlitigation from his federal court to state court in Polk County. Their intent, Judge Holmes said, was to gain approval of a joint settlement agreement from a state judge working under state court rules that required less scrutiny than federal courts require. The lawyers who face penalties have denied any wrongdoing in Adams v. USAA. In court filings, they have argued that many Arkansas federal judges have allowed court procedures that Holmes wants to punish them for using. Federal judges in and outside of Arkansas allow forum-shopping, and federal appeals courts have upheld the practice, the lawyers have argued. The lawyers also have asked Judge Holmes to spare them from punishment. The federal judge has suggested that he may order the attorneys to file documents in every class-action case they are involved in, acknowledging that they have been penalized for ethics violations in similar cases. Besides John Goodson, the Arkansas attorneys named in the Wartick class-action case include: plaintiffs' attorneys Matt Keil, a Goodson partner in Texarkana; W.H. Taylor, Timothy Myers, Stevan Vowell and William Putman of Fayetteville; and Tom Thompson and Casey Castleberry of Batesville. Defense attorneys include Lyn Pruitt of Little Rock. Other attorneys named are based in Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. UNITED STATES: Court Strikes Amended Complaints in "Johnson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan entered an order striking the Plaintiff's amended complaints in the lawsuit titled DAVID M. JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00072-TSC (D.D.C.). Judge Chutkan opined that the amended complaints are stricken because the Plaintiff seeks to add unrelated claims and unrelated defendants. According to the Order, the civil action began as one under the Freedom of Information Act, in which the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sought to compel release of certain Equal Employment Opportunity Commission records. Since filing his FIOA complaint against the EEOC and the Office of Personnel Management, Plaintiff has filed two amended complaints, one of which he filed without obtaining leave of court or written permission of the Defendant. The amended complaints include Title VII class action discrimination claims against the Department of the Treasury (which encompasses the Internal Revenue Service). In his motion for class certification, the Plaintiff explains that he seeks to represent a class of African-American IRS agents, who allegedly were discriminated against with respect to training, promotions and terminations. Even if joinder of the Plaintiff's Title VII claims had been appropriate, a pro se litigant may represent himself, but cannot appear on behalf of another person, Judge Chutkan said. She adds that there is no indication that the Plaintiff is qualified to serve as class representative. Hence, Judge Chutkan denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Judge Chutkan also denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel the Defendants' initial disclosures and sanctions. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I7dqkaLR UPLAND, CA: Faces "Hilliard" Suit in C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against City of Upland. The case is styled Christopher Hilliard, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. City of Upland, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01272 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2016). The City of Upland is located southeast of Los Angeles, nestled in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Plaintiff appears pro se. USA WHEEL: Abrego Seeks Collective Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled JARAMY ABREGO, RANDAL BARBER, and JEFFERY LEWIS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. USA WHEEL AND TIRE OUTLET INC. the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00919 (S.D. Tex.), move the Court to: (1) conditionally certify this matter as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b); (2) authorize mailing of the Notice to Potential Class Members and Opt-In/Consent Form to all "Drivers", "Warehouse Workers", "Maintenance Workers" and "Manual Laborers" who were employed by Defendant at any time within the three years immediately preceding conditional certification; and (3) require Defendant's representative(s) to produce under oath and under penalty of perjury, the names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers of all such class members so that notice may be timely implemented. The Plaintiffs described the Class as: "All hourly employees who are or were in a position similar to theirs (i.e., "Drivers", "Warehouse Workers", "Maintenance Workers" and "Manual Laborers") and who were paid in a similar manner. More importantly, the job duties of Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are such that, according to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the promulgated regulation, they are eligible for payment of overtime wages at a rate of one and one- half times their regular rate." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8RIyQBO2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778 8182 Facsimile: (832) 778 8353 E-mail: Taft.foley@thefoleylawfirm.com UTAH: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Legal Representation ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Winslow, writing for Fox13, reports that a class action lawsuit has been leveled against Utah, accusing the state of not doing enough to provide people with attorneys who cannot afford them in court. Six men are suing the state for failing to provide them with adequate legal representation, assisted by the ACLU of Utah and the firm Holland & Hart. Under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, you have a right to a lawyer if you cannot afford one. One of the plaintiffs, Skylar Garner, is facing a criminal charge in Carbon County for violating a no-contact order. He alleged in the lawsuit he has met with his court-appointed attorney for less than five minutes. Anthony Murdzak alleged in the lawsuit he was jailed earlier this year but held for 10 days and never once met with a court-appointed lawyer. "Following the arraignment, Mr. Murdzak had not met with defense counsel, had received no discovery, was unaware of when he would next meet with his defense counsel or when a preliminary hearing was set for his case," the lawsuit states. The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah said on June 21 that more than 80 percent of Utahns cannot afford a lawyer, so they must have the benefit of a public defender. Those lawyers are typically paid for by counties and municipalities, but have no state oversight. However, the ACLU has claimed, the system is failing. A series of audits, including one commissioned by the Sixth Amendment Center, have found significant lapses in the court system providing counsel, including underfunded and overworked public defense attorneys. The Utah State Legislature has recently attempted to address it by providing more oversight of public defenders and funding. "The state has known about these persistent and egregious issues with its public defense system for years. And yet, the state has continued to abdicate its responsibilities in this area, offering neither funding nor oversight to assist counties and municipalities in the provision of defense to those who cannot afford a private attorney," ACLU of Utah Legal Director John Mejia said on June 21. "The legislation passed during the 2016 Legislative Session is far beyond 'too little, too late.'" The Utah Attorney General's Office said on June 21 it was reviewing the lawsuit. "The timing of this lawsuit is particularly unfortunate," Utah Federal Solicitor Parker Douglas said in a statement. "Over the last year, the Judicial Committee, of which I am a member, has worked to assure that Utah appropriately responds to the needs of the indigent accused. The Committee's work led to the 2016 passage of S.B. 155, sponsored by Senator Todd Weiler and Representative Dan McCay. After going into effect on May 10, the bill created a commission to ensure proper indigent defense and ways to fund those services. "The bill was the result of an extraordinary effort by the Utah Judiciary, the Utah Legislature, members of the county attorneys, and many other state officials, as well as leaders of state and county criminal defense groups. To ask a judge to review these measures now, before any opportunity to see the results of that effort, is premature, and will require a single judge to review the collective efforts of the many interested stakeholders who have spent thousands of hours addressing the same issues." In a statement, House Minority Leader Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, said lawmakers need to do more to address the public defender system. "Utah has made significant efforts this past session through Senate Bill 155 by creating an Indigent Defense Commission. However, the bill does not go far enough to fund our constitutional obligation under the Sixth Amendment to pay for indigent defense," he said in the statement. "In order to ensure true justice for all our citizens, the state must guarantee the right to legal counsel by providing on-going, full funding of indigent defense and the ending of flat fee contracting. An individual's rights should not be based on income or social status. We look forward to working with the ACLU and our legislative colleagues to find legislative solutions to this very important issue." VIACOM: Shareholders Sue Redstone, Daughter ------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that shareholders joined the fray in the struggle for Viacom, claiming that both incumbent and ousted directors appeased Sumner Redstone to maintain their lucrative positions, even as he descended into dementia and drooled at the table. On June 16, the lead independent director of Viacom's board, Frederic Salerno, sued Sumner Redstone and his daughter Shari, claiming she's trying to seize control of the company through undue influence over her 93-year-old father by removing the independent board. Sumner Redstone controls Viacom through National Amusements Inc., which owns 80 percent of the voting shares of the company. However, his holdings represent only 10 percent of the company's equity. National Amusements filed its own complaint the same day, seeking to affirm the removal of Salerno and four other board members: George Abrams, Blythe McGarvie, William Schwartz and former CEO Philippe Dauman. Salerno portrays Shari Redstone as a "puppet master" who controls her father because of his "debilitating health and isolation." But a shareholder class action filed by lead plaintiff Eric Gilbert says Shari Redstone and Philippe Dauman "are playing a corporate Game of Thrones with Viacom, seeking to outflank each other in controlling Sumner Redstone, the Sumner M. Redstone National Amusements Trust, NAI and ultimately Viacom." He names the Redstones, National Amusements, Viacom and all members of the board of directors, including the dismissed directors, as defendants. "Sumner Redstone's personal issues, including a constant parade of girlfriends half his age and bitter family feuding with his children, have played out in the press for many years," according to the complaint. "While Sumner Redstone's physical and mental health have been in serious decline for several years, the board has failed to protect the company or the holders of its non-voting Class B common stock from the chaos that would ensue at Viacom when Sumner Redstone inevitably became incapacitated or passed away." Gilbert says the incumbent directors routinely renominated Redstone to serve on the board each year although he has not attended a meeting since 2014, and at that time "dozed and drooled" through them. "In essence, the board continued to appease the declining Sumner Redstone -- or whomever was controlling him at the moment, whether it be live-in girlfriends, family members, such as his daughter Shari Redstone, or Viacom officers, such as president and CEO Philippe Dauman -- in order to maintain their lucrative positions as directors of the company," the class-action complaint claims. The lawsuit asks the court to invalidate the June 2016 amendments to Viacom's bylaws, which give Redstone a director-level veto. It also claims that a bylaw that purports to allow directors to remove fellow directors violates Delaware law. The shareholders are represented by Elizabeth McGeever with Prickett, Jones & Elliott in Wilmington, Del. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Investor Class Action Over Emissions Scandal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Tovey, writing for The Telegraph, reports that Volkswagen is facing a multi-billion legal claim from investors who lost out when the company's shares collapsed because of its "widespread deliberate deceit" over the emissions scandal. International law from Quinn Emanuel has filed the first in a wave of class actions claims against the German car maker on behalf of shareholders who it says lost "many hundreds of millions of euros" following VW's admission in September that it cheated pollution control tests. The move is being backed by legal funding firm Bentham, which says it has gathered major VW shareholders, including sovereign wealth funds, global asset managers and major pension investors, who suffered in the wake of the car group admitting as many as 11m vehicles worldwide were fitted with "defeat devices" to beat emissions controls. The news wiped tens of billions of euros off the company's market value. Bentham added it is in talks with a "very large number" of other VW investors about them joining the class action, which is being filed in Germany. Jeremy Marshall, chief investment officer of Bentham -- which expects to receive about a fifth of any damages won in return for covering the legal fees -- said he expected the claims to "ultimately run into the billions of euros". "This is merely the first step in the campaign," Mr. Marshall said. "We have been struck throughout by the depth of feeling that exists against VW's admitted practices and its recent reaction to its self-inflicted crisis. "The breadth of the shareholder base represented should be a wake- up call to VW that it needs to engage with shareholders now, resolve matters and concentrate on regaining its market share." VW has so far taken EUR16.2bn in provisions to deal with the cost of so-called "dieselgate" scandal, which first emerged in the US in late September last year. However, the company has also agreed to buy back more than 500,000 affected cars in the US, which could significantly increase the costs, and may still face huge fines from American authorities. Since the scandal sent the company into crisis, VW's sales have fallen and the car maker has shaken up its management board. It is also facing calls for further action from major investors. They claim that, despite VW launching a huge and ongoing external investigation into who knew what and when about the scandal, executives have failed to take sufficient action to ensure such an event can never happen again. Matthias Mueller, who took over as chief executive as the crisis erupted, outlined a new focus on electric vehicles and self- driving cars for, as VW seeks to get back on track after the scandal. The claim, filed by Quinn Emanuel against VW, centers around investors not being told about the problems when the company was first aware of them. Such knowledge, it claims, would have meant they were unlikely to have invested in VW. Nadine Herrmann, the lawyer who is leading the case at Quinn Emanuel, said: "Our clients are serious investors who care deeply about good corporate governance and functioning capital markets. If there ever was a corporate scandal where courts must vindicate the information rights of capital market investors, it is this one." One investor being represented by Quinn Emanuel -- which has won almost $50bn (GBP32bn) for clients in the past and represented Google, Sony and Fifa -- is CalSTRS, the giant pension scheme for Californian teachers, which has funds of almost $190bn. Brian Bartow, CalSTRS general counsel, said VW had engaged in "widespread deliberate deceit" and must be held to account. "We have serious concerns about VW's internal controls, governance and oversight by the board," he added. "This claim seeks to recover not only our economic losses, but, ultimately, to implement much needed corporate governance reforms at VW." VW's management was expected to face tough questions at the annual meeting on June 22. Investor groups are urging shareholders to reject a vote of confidence in management. Asset manager Hermes is calling for a special audit to investigate whether directors properly scrutinized executives' actions. There will also be calls for the company to reveal findings from law firm Jones Day's investigation of the scandal. VW has delayed giving details of the probe, saying doing so could discourage people from being open with lawyers trying to discover the causes behind the use of defeat devices. Pressure on the company grew on June 20 when it emerged that German prosecutors are investigating Martin Winterkorn, the former chief executive who quit five days after the scandal broke. The probe is into whether he was involved in market manipulation by not making public VW's deceit earlier, with allegations that he had known about it for some time. When he quit he said he was "unaware of any wrongdoing on his part". VW was unavailable for comment. WAL-MART STORES: "Cruz" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 ----------------------------------------------------- Kiara Cruz, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-mart Store Inc., a foreign company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80382, was transferred from the U.S States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06166 to the proceeding. Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets. The "Cruz" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Jan-Yura Korolinsky, Esq. 16640 SW 145 Ave. Miami, FL 33177 Telephone: (305) 905 7406 E-mail: korolinsky@outlook.com The Defendant is represented by: Angelika Hunnefeld, Esq. Greenberg Traurig 333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 579 0500 Facsimile: (305) 579 0717 E-mail: hunnefelda@gtlaw.com WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2705 ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Jones, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. the Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01135, was transferred from the U.S States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06177 to the proceeding. Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets. The "Jones" case is being consolidated with MDL 2705 in re: 100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On June 2, 2016. All actions involve the alleged mislabeling of any 100% grated parmesan cheese product in the Eastern District of Missouri. They request that the MDL encompass the actions in their initial motion concerning Kraft and Wal-Mart, as well as potential tag-along actions involving Target, SuperValu, Albertsons, and the ICCO-Cheese Company. In its June 2, 2016 order, the MDL panel found that common factual questions arise from plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deceived consumers by marketing products containing cellulose as "100%" grated parmesan cheese. Common factual issues will include the underlying laboratory testing, consumer perception of the labeling representation, the alleged impact on pricing, and ICCO's alleged role as a common supplier for Wal-Mart and other stores selling house brand "100%" grated parmesan cheese products. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-05802. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com The Defendant is represented by: Kelly Dobbs Bunting, Esq. David E. Sellinger, Esq. Theodore J. Mcevoy, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2700 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988 7858 E-mail: buntingk@gtlaw.com sellingerd@gtlaw.com mcevoyt@gtlaw.com WELLS FARGO BANK: Court Certifies Classes in "McLaughlin" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned LATASHA McLAUGHLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, No. C 15-02904 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup granted, in part, and denied, in part, the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Judge Alsup certified a damages class and a declaratory class for claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The judge also appointed Latasha McLaughlin as class representative of all plaintiff classes, Berman DeValerio and Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel, with Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper LLP to serve as lead counsel. A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's June 22, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/v55I4m from Leagle.com. The named plaintiff, Latasha McLaughlin, brought the TILA action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the owner and servicer of her home mortgage. McLaughlin alleged that the bank breached its TILA obligation to provide her with an accurate payoff statement regarding her home mortgage. Latasha McLaughlin, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan Chowning Poppler -- cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Kristin J. Moody -- kmoody@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Patricia I. Avery -- pavery@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Insley-Pruitt -- minsley- pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, pro hac vice & Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Ashley Lynn Shively -- ashively@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Peter Joseph Kennedy -- pkennedy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Raymond A. Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP. WESTFORD REGENCY: "Aucoin" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Act ------------------------------------------------------------ LEONA AUCOIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WESTFORD REGENCY INN, INC. and WESTFORD REGENCY HEALTH SPA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 16- 1673 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks redress for Defendants' violation of the Wage Act (Massachusetts tips laws), and seeks mandatory treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to General Laws. Mrs. Leona Aucoin, seeks an order awarding declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by law including enjoining Defendants from continuing their unlawful practice of allowing Banquet Captains to share tips with Banquet Servers. The class is defined as All current and former employees of Defendants who, from June 9, 2010 through the present, worked as Banquet Servers and had a portion of their tips unlawfully paid to Banquet Captains." Westford Regency owns, operates, and manages Westford Regency Inn and Conference Center. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq. Danielle F. Jurema, Esq. FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN 189 Wells A venue Newton, MA 02459 E-mail: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com dfi@fogelmanlawfirm.com WHOLE FOODS: Sued Over False Dietary Supplement's Vit. A Content ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Whole Foods Market California, Inc., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC623645 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks to recover equitable relief including monetary damages, specific performance, rescission, attorney's fees and cost, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper due to Defendants' violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and by breaching an express and implied warranty. The Defendant allegedly misrepresented the Vitamin A content of its Women's Food Based Multivitamin dietary supplement as 10,000 IU per serving when a third party independent laboratory found only 1.746 IU Vitamin A per serving. Whole Foods Market Inc. is an American supermarket chain exclusively featuring foods without artificial preservatives, colors, flavors, sweeteners, and hydrogenated fats. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon M. Lyon, Esq. LYON LEGAL 2698 Junipero Avenue, Suite 201A Signal Hill, CA 90755 Telephone: (562) 216 7382 Facsimile: (562) 216 7385 E-mail: d.lyon@lyon-legal.com XTO ENERGY: 2nd Bid for Class Certification in "Roderick" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WALLACE B. RODERICK IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Amanda Roderick, Successor Trustee, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 08-1330-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), Judge Eric F. Melgren denied the plaintiff's second motion for class certification. A full-text copy of Judge Melgren's June 22, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/mgptuX from Leagle.com. The plaintiff, Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, owned natural gas wells that were operated by the defendant XTO Energy, Inc.. The Trust claimed that it was underpaid in royalty fees by XTO. Wallace B. Roderick Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA. XTO Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher A. Brown -- cabrown@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey C. King, Winstead PC, pro hac vice, John W. Broomes -- jbroomes@hinklaw.com -- Hinkle Law Firm LLC - Epic Center & Mark Banner -- mbanner@hallestill.com -- Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, PC, pro hac vice. YUCAIPA AMERICAN: Centonze Seeks to Block SBEEG Holdings Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CENTONZE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RONALD W. BURKLE, YUCAIPA AMERICAN ALLIANCE FUND II, L.P., YUCAIPA AMERICAN ALLIANCE (PARALLEL) FUND, L.P., YUCAIPA AMERICAN ALLIANCE FUND II, LLC, YUCAIPA AMERICAN FUNDS, LLC, YUCAIPA AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, LLC, THE YUCAIPA COMPANIES, LLC, HOWARD M. LORBER, JASON T. KALISMAN, JOHN J. DOUGHERTY, ANDREW BROAD, MICHELLE S. RUSSO, KENNETH E. CRUSE, BRADFORD B. NUGENT, MICHAEL E. OLSHAN, ADAM STEIN, SBEEG HOLDINGS, LLC, and TROUSDALE ACQUISITION SUB, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 59138434 (Del. Chancery Ct., June 13, 2016), seeks to enjoin the merger of SBEEG Holdings, LLC and Trousdale Acquisition Sub, Inc. with and into Morgans, with Morgans continuing as the surviving corporation in the merger (Proposed Buyout or Merger). This lawsuit also seeks an order requiring that the Morgans Board and the Controlling Stockholder Defendants comply with their fiduciary obligations and awarding Plaintiff and the Class damages suffered as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing. Yucaipa American specializes in buyouts of mid to large size companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504 4957 Facsimile: (302) 397 2681 - and - Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455 1400 Facsimile: (504) 455 1498 ZIMMERMAN REED: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Michael Stephen Kanne of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff Carlos Rocha's amended complaint. The appellate case is captioned, CARLOS G. ROCHA, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. J. GORDON RUDD, JR., ANNE T. REGAN, PATRICIA A. BLOODGOOD, ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP, GREGORY J. MEYERS, SUSAN ELLINGSTAD, and LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-1538 (7th Cir.). Plaintiff Carlos Rocha sued Defendants in federal district court, alleging several theories of harm, including legal malpractice and fraud, in association with a case against FedEx. Defendants, a group of law firms and several of their attorneys, had previously represented Plaintiff Carlos Rocha and other FedEx delivery drivers in an employment misclassification case against FedEx. The employment misclassification case ultimately settled, but Rocha was excluded from the settlement. Just before the settlement was finalized, Rocha retained Johnson, his current spouse, and discharged Defendants as his counsel. On October 30, 2012, Rocha and Arize 11, represented by Johnson, filed a 518-paragraph, 16-count complaint against FedEx and numerous FedEx executives, which included allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Sherman and Clayton Acts, and Illinois law. Rocha eventually amended the complaint to 17 counts. The district court dismissed Rocha's amended complaint on January 17, 2014, finding it to be "an egregious violation of Rule 8(a)." On appeal, Rocha contends that the district court erred by (1) dismissing his legal malpractice claim, (2) dismissing his fraud claim, and (3) dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. In his Opinion and Order dated June 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/IvjIpV from Leagle.com, Judge Kanne held that the district court correctly ruled that Rocha could not establish a legal malpractice claim as a matter of law because his claims under Fluegel v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 1:05-cv- 02326, (N.D. Ill. dismissed Sept. 17, 2012), were still viable after he discharged Defendants as his counsel. Neither Rocha's amended complaint, nor his proposed second amended complaint could meet the requisite pleading standards. His own pleadings and attached exhibits defeat any plausible claim of fraud. * South African Gold Mining Companies to Appeal Silicosis Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Franny Rabkin, writing for BDLive, reports that the Johannesburg High Court was on June 23 set to hear an application to appeal against its landmark silicosis class action judgment, which paves the way for between 17,000 and 500,000 mine workers and former mine workers suffering from silicosis to sue the mining companies for damages. The size and the scope of the certified class is unprecedented: if the lawsuit is to go ahead on the basis of the High Court's order, it will be against almost every gold mine in SA, including their parent companies. And it will cover their conduct over years -- from 1965 to last year. It will also cover both silicosis and tuberculosis sufferers. In a case where so much is at stake -- claims could run to billions of rand -- the gold mining companies have lodged six separate applications for leave to appeal. Between them, they have contested almost every aspect of the judgment. On June 23, the court was set to hear the applications by Gold Fields, AngloGold Ashanti, Anglo American SA, DRDGold, African Rainbow Minerals and Harmony Gold. The companies said the judgment addressed a "number of highly complex and important issues". These included a "far-reaching amendment of the common law, that had not previously been considered by other courts in SA". They believed that the court was incorrect on some of these issues and that another court may take a different view. In the judgment -- penned by Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo and Judge Bashier Valley -- the judges acknowledged that for the mine workers to succeed, their case will "entail and traverse novel and complex issues of fact and law". But they said for the vast majority of the mine workers -- most of them are poor, ill and living in far-flung places across the sub-continent -- the class action was the only realistic chance of their making a claim for compensation. To deny the class action would be to deny them access to courts -- something the courts "should be very careful" about, said the judges. ********* 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 * * *