/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160811.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 11, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 160 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Bryn Mawr Dental Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns 5W PUBLIC: Judge Denied Employee's Bid for Class Certification ADVANCE STORES: Data Breach Class Action Remanded to State Court AFFINION GROUP: Motion for Class Certification Pending AFFINION GROUP: Sept. 14 Oral Argument in Webloyalty Case Appeal AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet in 9th Cir. Webloyalty Case Appeal ALERE: Faulty Home Blood Test Puts Patients at Risk, Suit Claims ALEXANDER DEMOLITION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says ALLERGAN: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Large Eye Drops ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: 7th Cir. Affirms Remedial Order, Fee Award ALLSAINTS USA: Sued Over Printing of Credit Card No. in Receipts AMARILLO COLLEGE: 9th Cir. Won't Send Suit to Arbitration AMD ENERGY: "Domorad" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ANTHEM INC: No Argument Date Yet in "Gold" Action ANTHEM INC: Summary Judgment Bid on Remaining UCR Claims Granted ANTHEM INC: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation Ongoing ANTHEM INC: ERISA Class Suit Filed v. Company, Express Scripts ANZ BANK: Class Action Dismissal May Cost IMF Bentham $9.5MM AREVALO MANUFACTURING: "Burgos" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Trims Claims in "McNorrill" Suit AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Class Action Settlement Faces Delay AVENTURA, FL: Appeals Court Allows Use of Red Light Cameras AVENTURA FINEST: "Francis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Dorado" Suit BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS: Court Awards Arlington $1.3MM in Atty. Fees BUDGET RENT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in "Humphreys" BUDGET RENT: Humphreys Appeals Ruling From E.D. Pennsylvania BURCH & COMPANY: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Demurrer CAMP GLADIATOR: Trainer Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages CARLTON MANOR: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "McKinney" Class Suit CEMEX: Must Face Class Action Over Fuel, Environmental Fees COLUSA, CA: Ex-Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages CONSUMER CREDIT: Faces TCPA Class Action in California CRAB ADDISON: Plaintiff May Withdraw Summary Judgment Bid CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants Final Approval of "Reyes" Settlement DANA CORP: November 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set DANTE DEMARTINO: "Moslem" Files Request for Judicial Intervention DISNEY: Labaton Sucharow Mulls Securities Fraud Class Action DOUBLE J SALOON: "Calderon" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay DUANE READE: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Racial Discrimination EATON CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Unpaid Overtime Wages FLYING FOOD: "Menjivar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces "Cryer" Class Suit in N.D. California GE CAPITAL: December 19 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Favors Dismissal of "Rephen" Suit GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action in Japan Over HPV Vaccines GLOBUS MEDICAL: Silverstein Litigation Still Pending H. TRADING: Faces "Fouissi" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act HAYRE-HARTER: "Tacza" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA HOMESTEAD FORD: Faces "Farinas" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation HOUSE OF WU: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Barendse" Class Suit Asserts ICM GROUP: Settles Illawara Customers' Loan Fee Class Action INDIANA: DOT Faces Class Action Over Chip & Seal Process INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Under FLSA, Min. Wage Act JGWPT HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in "Sanders" Suit JOJOLIA INC: "Apilado" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code JT MEAT: Faces "Garcia" Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law JUI LI: Class Cert. Granted in Automotive Sheet Metal Parts Case KATE SPADE: Judge Denied Defendant's Bid to Dismiss Suit KBS FLOORING: "Camargo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay KRAFT FOODS: Court Dismisses CEA Claims on Wash Trading Scheme LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Nov. 17 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Product Liability Case in Expert Discovery LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Steele" Action in Ontario LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Suit Over Abrasion Claims LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Litigation LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Ross" Litigation MARYLAND: Court Approves Settlement in Detainees' Suit MASSAGE ENVY: Hardwick Appeals Ruling in "Crawford" Class Suit MERCK & CO: 400+ Women Join Equal Pay Class Action MIDLAND CREDIT: Settles TCPA Class Action, Aug. 26 Hearing Set MODESTO CITY, CA: Faces "Beidleman" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Accused by "Beets" Suit of Violating TCPA MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Parties in Discovery MOTION PICTURE: Faces Class Action Over "Tobacco Imagery" Film NEW MEXICO: 10th Cir. Affirms Ruling on E-Filing Fee Structure NOVA SCOTIA: Ex-Residents Still Waiting for Settlement Payouts OCEAN DETAILING: "Charles" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PACIFIC PROCESS: "Andrews" Files New Suit Over Unpaid Settlement PALOS VERDES, CA: Lunada Bay Boys Lose Bid to Dismiss Suit PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Court Grants Judgment on Pleadings PAYPAL INC: December 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set PEAK CAMPUS: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Ads PFIZER INC: Settles Securities Class Action Over Arthritis Drugs PHILADELPHIA GAS: Landlords Want Judge to Nullify Gas Liens PVH CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in "Scott-George" Suit PILGRIM'S PRIDE: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Compensation, Reinstatement PIZZA HUT KANSAS: "Creech" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Reimbursements PMZ REAL ESTATE: Judge Allows Fraud Class Action to Proceed RANSOM MEMORIAL: Faces Kansas Suit Under FLSA, Wage Payment Act REDBACK ENERGY: Faces "Caffey" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Additive Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Settlement in "Sateriale" Case Approved REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Feinman" Class Suit Dismisssed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Stayed "Young" Class Suit REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 76 Filter Cases Pending v. Lorillard REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "DeLisle" Appeal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Update in Smokeless Tobacco Litigation REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in ERISA Litigation Appeal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Delaware Shareholder Actions Closed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in North Carolina Appeal RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in "Argabright" Suit RIDDELL: Ex-NFL Player Files Class Action Over Helmet Issues ROMA SAUSAGE: "Begic" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages SAINT-GOBAIN: First PFOA-Related Personal Injury Suit Filed SAMSUNG: Faces Class Action Over Defective Remote Controls SCHIFF NUTRITION: "Cochoit" Sues Over Restricted Access SCOTTRADE: Missouri Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action SKULLCANDY INC: "Bernicke" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal SOUTH LAFOURCHE: Louisiana Appeals Court Vacates Atty. Fee Order STATE STREET: Settles Foreign Exchange Cases for $530 Million SUMMIT ENTERTAIMENT: "Pawelsky" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages T & B MANAGEMENT: Faces "Chavez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach TOWERJAZZ: Court Approves Voluntary Class Action Dismissal TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Byles" Suit Alleges TUCKER ENERGY: "Headrick" Suit Seeks Compensation, Reinstatement US BANCORP: Calif. Appeals Court Won't Send Case to Arbitration VIACOM INC: Engineers Pension Fund Files Lawsuit in Delaware VIACOM INC: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Intrusion Claim VOLKSWAGEN AG: Target of US-Style Class Action Bill in Korea VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Class Settlement, Plan of Allocation Okayed VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK VOYA RETIREMENT: "Dezelan" Files ERISA Class Action in Conn. WASHINGTON: Court Grants Class Certification in "Teeter" Suit WESTERN WORLD: Calif. App. Affirms Summary Judgment WISCONSIN: Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment WORLD WRESTLING: Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration ZUMIES INC: "Bernal" Suit Alleges Unfair Employment Practices * IMF Bentham Sponsors UNSW Class Action Research Project ********* 3M COMPANY: Bryn Mawr Dental Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryn Mawr Dental Associates, LTD., on behalf of itself and all others, similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 3M Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-02521, (D. Minn., July 26, 2016), seeks temporary and permanent enjoinment, applicable statutory and civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded, award of costs and attorney fees and such other or further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty, violations of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. 3M Company and through its subsidiary division 3M ESPE aggressively marketed and sold its Lava(TM) Ultimate Restorative to dentists around the country. Their machine failed at an alarming rate because of the manner in which the crown flexes when under pressure and its failure to accept affixation through recommended bonding or cementation procedures. Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com - and - Paul Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 580-8747 Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com - and - Peiffer Rosca Wolf, Esq. Alan L. Rosca, Esq. ABDULLAH CARR & KANE - A Professional Law Corporation 1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610 Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: (216) 589-9280 Fax: (888) 411-0038 Email: arosca@prwlegal.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Tel: (215) 867-2200 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com 5W PUBLIC: Judge Denied Employee's Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cynthia S. Kern of the Supreme Court of New York County, denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case KRISTINA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of Other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 5W PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC, RONN TAROSSIAN Or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by 5W PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC and RONN TAROSSIAN, Defendants, Docket No. 156571/14 (N.Y.) 5W Public Relations, LLC is a for-profit public relations agency servicing national corporations, start-up technology companies, high-profile individuals, various brands and consumer companies and is one of the twenty largest public relations firms in the United States, with revenues exceeding $19 million. Plaintiff Kristina Rodriguez and a putative class of individuals filed a suit against 5W and its founder and CEO Ronn Torossian for violating New York Labor Law Section 663 and NYCRR 142-2.1 and Section 198 by failing to pay plaintiff and other members of the putative class minimum wages for all hours worked and for failing to pay plaintiff and other members of the putative class any wages for their hours worked. Plaintiffs moved for an order pursuant to CPLR Section 901 certifying the action as a class action: all individuals engaged in 5W's internship program from July 2008 through the present. Judge Kern denied plaintiffs' motion for an order certifying the action as a class action. A copy of Judge Kern's order dated July 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Q5OWzLfrom Leagle.com. ADVANCE STORES: Data Breach Class Action Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in a case with a familiar fact pattern, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana refused to find that permitting Plaintiff to proceed in Louisiana state court was "futile" on Article III standing issues and remanded the matter to the state court for determination whether Plaintiff has constitutional standing to proceed with his suit. Plaintiff, Walter Bradix, IV, a former employee of Advance Stores Company, d/b/a Advanced Auto Parts store, sued his former employer for disclosure of his and a number of other employees' personal information. The disclosure occurred as a result of a phishing scam where in the attacker posed as an employee of Defendant. The disclosed information including employees' names, gross wages for 2015, social security numbers and state in which each employee paid income tax. The Plaintiff alleged that the information can, and likely already has, been used by thieves to open credit card accounts, file tax returns, etc. In support of the foregoing, Plaintiff pointed to two unidentified inquires on his credit report. Plaintiff argued that the remedy offered by the Defendant -- 24 months of credit monitoring services -- was "woefully inadequate" and that Plaintiff and other employees will incur significant costs to correct breaches of their personal data which Advance argued were yet to occur. Plaintiff filed a class action petition in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's conduct with regard to the phishing attack amounted to negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and invasion of privacy under Louisiana state law. Defendant removed the action to federal court asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), and then filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court denied Defendant's motion and entered an order remanding the case to Louisiana State Court. Defendant then asked for reconsideration of the Court's ruling. In its motion for reconsideration, Defendant argued that dismissal is more appropriate as remand to Louisiana court would be "futile". Advance argued that Plaintiff lacked standing in both federal court and Louisiana state court because both courts can only preside over cases "involving 'actual present or immediately threatened injury' and more than a 'hypothetical threat.'" It was the Defendant's position that the Louisiana state court would rely on federal jurisprudence and apply federal law regarding speculative harm, and since the federal law clearly provides that federal court has no jurisdiction over matters dealing with speculative harm, neither would the Louisiana state court have jurisdiction over such claim. The District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected Defendant's futility argument finding it too broad and also finding it uncertain that the lack of standing under Article III would necessarily mean that the Louisiana state court would have to dismiss the case. Relying on the United States Supreme Court's discussion of the futility doctrine wherein the Court refused to apply the futility doctrine to circumstances where "plaintiff's Article III standing would not necessarily defeat its standing in state court," the District Court found that Defendant failed to establish that Louisiana state law firmly follows the Supreme Court on the issue of Article III standing. International Primate Protection League v. Tulane Educaitonal Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (1991). Based upon the foregoing, the District Court refused to apply the futility doctrine to the within set of facts and remanded the matter to the state court for determination whether Plaintiff has standing to proceed with his suit. AFFINION GROUP: Motion for Class Certification Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company does not know when the court will rule on the motion for class certification or the motion for Summary Judgment. On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration. While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class certification that called for the completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs. On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that had been set previously. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April 5, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA. Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800- Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13, 2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate. On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the consolidated amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions of the court's order of March 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion was completed on June 5, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory appeal. On May 29, 2015, the court issued a scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015. On May 29, 2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive motions, which are due February 29, 2016. If no dispositive motions are filed, a joint trial memorandum would be due by April 1, 2016, and jury selection would take place on May 3, 2016. If dispositive motions are filed, the joint trial memorandum would be due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection would take place on November 1, 2016. On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class certification, with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants filed an opposition brief on December 15, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 22, 2015, and Defendants filed a sur-reply on December 29, 2015. On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the individual claims of the remaining named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a response on March 21, 2016, and the Company filed its response on April 4, 2016. The Company does not know when the court will rule on the motion for class certification or the motion for Summary Judgment. AFFINION GROUP: Sept. 14 Oral Argument in Webloyalty Case Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has scheduled oral arguments for Plaintiff's appeal for September 14, 2016. On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card associations in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the EFT, ECPA, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and CUTPA violation (the "Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On November 1, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint, which Plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on Plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the Plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike. The court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until further proceedings the determination as to whether all of Plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible. The court permitted the Plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other discovery was stayed in the case. The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court would set a further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the conclusion of this limited discovery. The Plaintiff amended his complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the Defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015. The Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on April 24, 2015, the Defendants filed their reply briefs in response to that opposition. On October 15, 2015, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without further leave to amend. On November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal decision, but no further dates for that appeal have been scheduled. Plaintiff's opening appeals brief was filed on February 10, 2016. The Company's answering brief was filed on April 15, 2016 and the Plaintiff filed a reply brief on May 11, 2016. The court has scheduled oral arguments for Plaintiff's appeal for September 14, 2016. AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet in 9th Cir. Webloyalty Case Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Ninth Circuit court has not yet scheduled a hearing for the appeal in a class action lawsuit against Webloyalty. On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action. The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professional Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of CUTPA. Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and billing of the Plaintiff, Webloyalty charged Plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from Plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly required under ROSCA. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013. Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30, 2013. The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the ECPA and for unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the submissions and issue a decision on Plaintiff's motion without oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds. The court has allowed the Plaintiff 28 days to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the complaint would not be futile. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015, and the Company's answering brief was filed on January 19, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 2, 2016. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing for this appeal. ALERE: Faulty Home Blood Test Puts Patients at Risk, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anticoagulants like warfarin require constant monitoring and adjustment of dosages to strike the balance between dangerously low coagulant levels that could lead to uncontrollable bleeding and dangerously high levels that could lead to deadly clots. Alere, a diagnostics firm, sold a number of home blood coagulation test systems prescribed by physicians to help patients maintain that precise balance. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration discovered that the company had failed to report known instances in which the blood testing device produced significantly inaccurate results. When the company failed to respond the FDA's warning letter, the FDA intervened and the company issued a "voluntary" Class 1 Recall of its INRatio Monitors, INRatio2 Monitors and INRatio Test Strips. Class 1 recalls are rare, issued only when there is a significant and immediate danger of death or other serious injury from using the recalled product. Despite the seriousness of the recall, Alere didn't ensure that all patients relying on these systems received recall notices. In addition, the company hasn't offered to refund the costs of the monitoring systems to anyone. Two plaintiffs -- J.E. from Alexandria, Virginia, and J.D. from Tucson, Arizona -- have brought a class-action lawsuit against Alere. They are represented by John Roddy -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- and Elizabeth Ryan -- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- of Bailey & Glasser's Boston, Massachusetts, office, David Selby of the firm's Birmingham, Alabama, office, and Todd Wheeles and Jeremy Knowles -- jknowles@mhhlaw.net -- with Morris, Haynes, Wheeles, Knowles & Nelson. Neither plaintiff -- identified only by their initials in the complaint in order to protect confidential medical information -- received a recall notice from Alere. Both learned of the products' inaccuracy after searching the Internet. Neither has received any refund, even though J.D. paid approximately $1,700 out-of-pocket for Alere products. Tens of thousands of Alere customers are potentially members of the class covered by this lawsuit. Alere continues to advertise the system for sale to the public, despite the acknowledged flaws, and it has refused to provide refunds to customers. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts. Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston, West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP has grown to include 52 lawyers, with offices in nine states and the District of Columbia. The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high-stakes commercial litigation; class actions for consumers, insureds, investors, and retirement plan participants; catastrophic injury and defective product cases; antitrust; and whistleblower lawsuits. The firm has extensive experience in energy law, and litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy courts, regulatory agencies, and appellate courts. It has a major corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial transactions. ALEXANDER DEMOLITION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUE CARRERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ALEXANDER DEMOLITION AND HAULING, a California Corporation; Felipe Davila, an individual; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC, a Maryland Corporation; SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Case No. BC628625 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay minimum and overtime wages. Alexander Demolition and Hauling is a California corporation with its principal place of business located within Los Angeles County. Alexander demolishes and hauls houses, commercial, and industrial buildings. Alexander employs laborers, including the Plaintiff, to demolish and haul away commercial and residential developments. Felipe Davila is the owner, director, officer, or managing agent of Alexander. Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business located in Vancouver, Washington. South East Employee Leasing Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in Holiday, Florida. Alexander contracted with Barrett and South East to provide payroll services within the relevant statutes of limitations periods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Goldman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. GOLDMAN, PC 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1650 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 287-7689 Facsimile: (818) 287-7816 E-mail: ken@kengoldmanlaw.com ALLERGAN: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Large Eye Drops ----------------------------------------------------------- The Madison County Record reports that U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle certified a class action on a claim that makers of eye drops for glaucoma patients design their droppers to waste fluid. On July 25, she ruled that four plaintiffs could represent Illinois and Missouri residents who used eye drops of Allergan, Alcon, Bausch and Lomb, Pfizer, Merck, and Prasco. "There are differences between plaintiffs, such as plaintiffs' ages and varying treatment plans, but the core issue is whether the dispensers release unnecessarily large eye drops," Judge Yandle wrote. "The alleged injury, that the large drops have resulted in wastage of medication, remains the same for all four named plaintiffs and for the putative class as a whole." John Simon of St. Louis and Mark Goldenberg of Edwardsville represent the plaintiffs, along with members of their firms. Mr. Simon filed the suit in 2012, for Charlene Eike, Shirley Fisher, Jordan Pitler, and Alan Raymond. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, and moved for a stay pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. Merck counsel Chris Schmidt argued for a stay at a hearing before Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson in 2013, on behalf of all defendants. "We are dealing with novel claims, claims that we are not aware of any court sanctioning, let alone any consumer bringing anywhere in the country," Mr. Schmidt said. "Plaintiffs are seeking to force the defendants, who are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, to change their manufacturing processes. "They are seeking damages for that excess waste to the extent they are able to calculate it." He said plaintiffs didn't plead any actual injury. "They have conceded that you can't overdose the eye," Mr. Schmidt said. Judge Wilkerson ruled that neither the novelty of the theories nor the expense of discovery warranted a stay. "Defendants argue that hundreds if not thousands of hours of attorney and client time will be devoted to discovery in addition to time that will be spent litigating the scope of discovery," Wilkerson wrote. "None of these points are particularly unique to this case." He wrote that discovery for defendants as a group would be extensive, but there was no showing that the burden on each individual defendant would be onerous. District Judge David Herndon denied the motion to dismiss the action in 2014, finding plaintiffs plausibly pleaded actual damages. He wrote that they alleged actual damage as measured by the price of the portion of each drop in excess of 15 microliters. "At this stage of the litigation, the court finds this sufficient to survive review," Judge Herndon wrote. He wrote that plaintiffs premised their claims on representing classes of consumers who bought similar products from the companies. "They need not have used every prescription eye drop manufactured by every defendant," he wrote. Defendants moved for reconsideration or an order allowing interlocutory appeal, but Judge Herndon wouldn't get a chance to consider the motion. The case passed to Judge Yandle when she joined the court, and she denied the motion. This February, she set trial for December. Mr. Goldenberg entered his appearance in March, along with Kevin Green and Thomas Rosenfeld of his firm. On July 18, plaintiffs and defendants jointly moved to vacate the December trial date pending a ruling on class certification. Judge Yandle delivered her decision a week later. As of July 26, she had not acted on the motion to postpone trial. A federal judge in New Jersey dismissed a similar class action in March. District Judge Freda Wolfson ruled that plaintiffs "failed to show that smaller-tipped bottles would be priced lower based solely on volume," according to defense attorneys at Shook Hardy and Bacon. Judge Wolfson further found that "plaintiffs failed to establish economic harm or entitlement to reimbursement; the bottle design in use was approved by the FDA; and there were no allegations that plaintiffs would have purchased comparable cheaper products, producing smaller drops, in place of the defendants' products," according to an article on the firm's website. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: 7th Cir. Affirms Remedial Order, Fee Award ------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the trial court's remedial order and awarded attorney's fees and approved settlements among some of the parties in the case captioned, CAROL CHESEMORE, et al., on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. DAVID B. FENKELL, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-3181, 14-3215 & 15-3740 (7th Cir.). Trachte Building Systems, Inc., a Wisconsin manufacturer, established an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in the mid- 1980s when ESOPs were a popular employee-benefits instrument. In the late 1990s, David Fenkell and Alliance Holdings, Inc., a company he founded and controlled, developed a niche specialty in buying and selling ESOP-owned, closely held companies with limited marketability. In accordance with this business model, Alliance acquired Trachte in 2002 for $24 million and folded its ESOP into Alliance's ESOP. The new Trachte ESOP used the employees' accounts as collateral to incur debt to purchase Trachte's equity back from Alliance. Multiple interlocking transactions to that effect closed on the same day in August 2007. When all was said and done, Trachte and the new Trachte ESOP had paid $45 million for 100% of Trachte's stock and incurred $36 million in debt. The purchase price was inflated and the debt load was unsustainable. By the end of 2008, Trachte's stock was worthless. The losers in this deal -- the employee participants in the new Trachte ESOP -- sued Alliance, Fenkell, his handpicked trustees, and several other entities alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA. The district court held a bench trial and issued a comprehensive opinion finding the defendants liable. After an additional hearing, the judge crafted a careful remedial order making the class and a subclass whole. While the case was under advisement, the district court found Fenkell in contempt for failing to comply with the remedial order. On appeal, Fenkell concedes liability but raises many objections to the remedial order, the award of attorney's fees, and the settlements by his codefendants. The plaintiffs filed a cross- appeal seeking a larger award of attorney's fees and contesting the judge's refusal to award costs against Fenkell. In her Order dated July 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/23hyIk from Leagle.com, Judge Sykes held that (1)the district court had the authority to order Fenkell to indemnify the new Trachte ESOP trustees. That remedy is within the court's equitable powers and is consistent with principles of trust law within which ERISA operates; (2) Fenkell has not established standing to challenge the settlements; (3) Fenkell responsible for the attorney's fees that remained unpaid after the settlements; and (4) the contempt order was procedurally and substantively sound. Alliance Holdings, Inc. et al. are represented by Patrick W. Spangler, Esq. -- pspangler@vedderprice.com -- Charles Benno Wolf, Esq. -- Swolf@lewitthackman.com -- and VEDDERPRICE -- Charles C. Jackson, Esq. -- charles.jackson@morganlewis.com -- and James P. Looby, Esq. -- james.looby@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS David B. Fenkell is represented by David R. Johanson, Esq. -- djohanson@hptylaw.com -- and Douglas Andrew Rubel, Esq. -- drubel@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP -- Lars Golumbic, Esq. -- lgolumbic@groom.com -- GROOMLAW GROUP -- and Erin E. McAdams, Esq. -- erin.mcadams@morganlewis.com - MORGAN LEWIS Carol Chesemore, et al. are represented by Andrew W. Erlandson, Esq. -- aerlandson@hbslawfirm.com - HURLEY, BURISH & STANSTON, SC -- Michelle C. Yau, Esq. -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Robert Joseph Barton, Esq. -- jbarton@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN ALLSAINTS USA: Sued Over Printing of Credit Card No. in Receipts ---------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA MOCEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLSAINTS USA LIMITED, a foreign business corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-10056 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 29, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of the Defendants violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). To maximize its ability to sell products and services, AllSaints accepts payment cards from all major card brands at all of its retail locations. Accordingly, it is bound to the same contractual obligations that Visa, MasterCard, and American Express impose on all merchants: it is required to truncate payment card account numbers (all but the last four digits), leave off expiration dates, and otherwise comply with all applicable truncation laws (including FACTA}. Yet despite its clear contractual and legal obligations, AllSaints continues to print 10 account number digits-twice what is allowed under FACTA-on the payment card receipts it issues to consumers at its retail stores within the United States. AllSaints is an international fashion retailer that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenues through high- end clothing stores around the world. The Company is majority- owned by Lion Capital LLP, a sophisticated international investment partnership with billions of dollars invested in more than 100 consumer brands. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Courtney C. Booth EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com cbooth@edelson.com AMARILLO COLLEGE: 9th Cir. Won't Send Suit to Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district court's denial of Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, PAIGE MARTIN, SUNDAE WORTHY, MARIA FORD, and MEGAN TALLERICO, on behalf of themselves and classes of those similarly situated; Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. GARY YASUDA; AMARILLO COLLEGE OF HAIRDRESSING, INC., DBA Milan Institute, DBA Milan Institute of Cosmetology, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-55696 (9th Cir.). The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on October 28, 2013 against the college and its owner and President, Gary Yasuda, alleging that the defendants violated state labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the plaintiffs contended, among other things, that Milan was an "employer" within the meaning of state law as well as the FLSA and thus, as uncompensated employees, they were entitled to minimum hourly wages, overtime wages, and unpaid premiums for missed meal and rest breaks. Over seventy individuals opted to join the action between October 2013 and March 2014. On May 16, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to File Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and Class Certification with the district court which was subsequently granted by the district court. The plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on June 6, 2014. It named additional plaintiffs and added additional state wage and hour claims. On March 20, 2015, almost seventeen months after the start of the case, the defendants actually moved to compel individual arbitration. In the motion, they argued, among other things, that the court must enforce the parties' arbitration agreements, that the agreements were valid and enforceable, and that they, the defendants, had not waived arbitration. The plaintiffs opposed the motion by arguing that the defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration and that the terms were unconscionable and unenforceable. Applying the three factor waiver test employed in the circuit, the district court denied the defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration. On appeal, the defendants contend that the district court erred in two ways. First, they argue that an arbitrator, rather than the district court, should decide whether the defendants waived their right to arbitration through litigation conduct. Second, they contend that even if the district court was correct to decide the issue, it erred by finding waiver. In his Opinion dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Nr0z8E from Leagle.com, Judge Reinhardt held that the district court did not err in deciding the litigation conduct waiver issue itself because the Defendants have waived their right to compel arbitration. Amarillo College Of Hairdressing, Inc., dba Milan Institute, DBA Milan Institute of Cosmetology are represented by William M. Hensley, Esq. -- mhensley@alvaradosmith.com -- Marc D. Alexander, Esq. -- malexander@alvaradosmith.com -- and Jonathan M. Werner, Esq. -- jwerner@alvaradosmith.com -- ALVARADO SMITH -- Kirsten L. Clevenger, Esq. -- kclevenger@dfrglaw.com -- Matthew L. Hoppock, Esq. -- matthew@hoppocklawfirm.com -- and Ronald L. Holt, Esq. -- rholt@dfrglaw.com -- DUNN & DAVISON LLC Paige Martin, Sundae Worthy, Maria Ford, and Megan Tallerico are represented by Chaya M. Mandelbaum Esq. -- cmm@rezlaw.com -- and Michelle G. Lee, Esq. -- mgl@rezlaw.com -- RUDY, EXELROD & ZIEFF, LLP -- Dana Sniegocki, Esq. -- dana23@gmail.com -- LAW OFFICE OF LEON GREENBERG -- Adetunji Olude, Esq. -- Adetunji.Olude@jud.ca.gov -- and Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq. -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW AMD ENERGY: "Domorad" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Derek Domorad, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. AMD Energy Services LLC, Mayra Dehoyos, Stan Bates and FLW-AMD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00748 (W.D. Tex., July 25, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendants are oilfield service companies servicing the oil and gas industry in the State of Texas where Plaintiff performed routine and manual labor in the oilfield. Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com ANTHEM INC: No Argument Date Yet in "Gold" Action ------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a date for argument has not been set in the "Gold" class action lawsuit. The Company said, "We are defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance. The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong ESMs. A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues, finding that (i) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the State of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (ii) Anthem Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a presumption that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct; and (iii) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual obligation. In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate appellate court. A date for argument has not been set. We intend to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." ANTHEM INC: Summary Judgment Bid on Remaining UCR Claims Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims in the case, In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of- Network "UCR" Rates Litigation. The Company said, "We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies." The Company added, "We filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those amended complaints, which were granted in part and denied in part. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims." "In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non- Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non- Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff. Fact discovery is complete." "The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013 seeking six different classes. Following oral argument, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in late 2014. The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but two of the individually named subscribers and all of the providers and medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice. "We filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016, and a motion for summary judgment was also filed by one of the remaining individual plaintiffs. In July 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted our motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." ANTHEM INC: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues defend against the case, In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation. The Company said, "We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. "The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. "Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has commenced. "In October 2015, the court issued an order accelerating deadlines for the underlying actions originally filed in Alabama, setting a January 2017 discovery deadline, and scheduling class certification and expert proceedings in 2017 and a pretrial conference in January 2018. Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been or will be consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." ANTHEM INC: ERISA Class Suit Filed v. Company, Express Scripts -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern District of New York by three members of ERISA plans alleging ERISA violations. The lawsuit is captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The lawsuit is purportedly filed on behalf of participants in, or beneficiaries of, ERISA governed employee welfare benefit plans from December 1, 2009 to the present who received prescription drug benefits under an Anthem plan provided through an agreement with Express Scripts. The complaint alleges that Express Scripts violated ERISA by overcharging Plaintiffs and the proposed class for percentage based copays based on prescription drug charges that are higher than competitive prices. Plaintiffs allege that Anthem is an ERISA fiduciary and breached its fiduciary obligations by (i) entering into an agreement with Express Scripts that was imprudent and not in the best interests of the members of the proposed class but enriched Anthem and granted to Express Scripts excessive discretion to set prescription drug prices, and (ii) failing to properly monitor and prevent Express Scripts from overcharging Plaintiffs and the proposed class for copays. The complaint asserts seven claims for relief under ERISA, four of which are asserted against Anthem. Plaintiffs seek to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, joint and several liability, attorney's fees and costs and interest. We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. ANZ BANK: Class Action Dismissal May Cost IMF Bentham $9.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------ The Australian Associated Press reports that the High Court's dismissal of a customer class action against ANZ over credit card fees may cost the company that funded the case as much as $9.5 million. Litigation funder IMF Bentham said it had already written off its intangible assets related to the ANZ case when the Federal Court ruled in favor of the bank in 2014. The High Court's dismissal of an appeal by customers may have consequences for similar legal actions against other banks, and IMF Bentham said it will recognize other impairments and higher costs if its related bank fees cases are discontinued. That could reduce its net profit for the 2015/16 financial year by no more than $9.5 million, it said. IMF Bentham made a net profit of $6.3 million in the 2014/15 year, and posted a $944,000 loss in the six months to December 2015. The judgment handed down in Brisbane followed a six-year legal battle, which initially went the way of customers in a February 2014 ruling before the Federal Court overturned the decision last year. AREVALO MANUFACTURING: "Burgos" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- GONZALO BURGOS, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. AREVALO MANUFACTURING, INC and JESUS AREVALO, Case No. 4:16-cv-02245 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2016), seeks judgment against the Defendants for an amount equal to the Plaintiff's and the proposed class members' unpaid overtime wages. The class of similarly situated Plaintiffs is properly defined as: All welders and painters paid on an hourly basis who were employed by the Defendants Arevalo Manufacturing, Inc. and Jesus Arevalo during the three-year period preceding the filing of this Complaint. Arevalo Manufacturing, Inc., is a Texas corporation. Arevalo was at all relevant times an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. Jesus Arevalo is an individual resident of the state of Texas and is the control person of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Trims Claims in "McNorrill" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Randall Hall of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss in the case captioned, JOSEPH MICHAEL McNORRILL, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-210 (S.D. Ga.). In the putative class action, Plaintiff Joseph Michael McNorrill, as class representative, alleges that Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by attempting to collect and, in fact, accepting payments on time- barred debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. On November 7, 2014, Defendant removed the case to the Court. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint because he filed suit after the FDCPA's statute of limitations ran. In response to Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a brief opposing dismissal and amended his Complaint. In light of the amendment, the Court terminated Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot. On December 23, 2014, Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss arguing that Plaintiff's FDCPA claim is time-barred by the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations. In the Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/sXF3fl from Leagle.com, Judge Hall found that the FDCPA's statute of limitations bars Plaintiff's claim concerning Defendant's filing of a time-barred proof of claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Defendant's acceptance of payments on time-barred debts in connection with a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceeding because Plaintiff states a timely claim and granted as to Plaintiff's claim addressed to the filing of time-barred proofs of claims. Joseph Michael McNorrill is represented by Christopher A. Cosper, Esq. -- ccosper@hullbarrett.com -- HULL BARRETT, PC Asset Acceptance, LLC is represented by Benjamin H. Brewton, Esq. -- bbrewton@tuckerlong.com -- and Jason W. Blanchard, Esq. -- jblanchard@tuckerlong.com -- TUCKER, EVERITT, LONG, BREWTON & LANIER, PC -- Chase T. Espy, Esq. -- cespy@balch.com -- and Jason B. Tompkins, Esq. -- jtompkins@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Class Action Settlement Faces Delay ---------------------------------------------------------- Tim Darragh, writing for NJ.com, reports that a planned class action settlement between residents of the destroyed Avalon at Edgewater apartment complex and its owners, scheduled for court action Aug. 1, will be delayed as residents who have separate lawsuits seek to intervene in the case. Barry Epstein, whose firm represents residents of 47 units of the complex that burned to the ground Jan. 21, 2015, said he is asking the court to intervene in the class action in part because the settlement would not cover all his clients' losses. "I don't consider this a meaningful resolution," he said. "It's not offering them anything they didn't have a year and a half ago." Around 500 people in 240 units lost their residences in the fire, which was accidentally started by maintenance workers using a blowtorch. Mr. Epstein's firm filed a motion in July to intervene in the class action case, which is a combination of complaints filed into one in federal court. The class action, proposed for former residents with property owner AvalonBay Communities, Inc., was scheduled to go before the court on Aug. 1 for preliminary approval. A judge's approval is needed to certify the class action and the settlement. Instead, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson scheduled on Aug. 1 as the deadline for Mr. Epstein to file papers arguing why his clients should be allowed to get involved. Lawyers for the proposed class action members are opposing the bid to intervene, saying it would only prolong the difficulties the former residents have faced since the five-alarm fire. Besides, they said in a court filing, former residents will be able to choose to join the class or stay out and continue their individual lawsuits. A court already has once dismissed Epstein's bid to intervene as moot, once the settlement was reached with AvalonBay, it says. But Mr. Epstein said he is concerned because his firm was not copied on some records filed in the case, which could affect his clients. He also said the terms of the settlement, while not capped, do not cover all his clients' needs. The former residents Mr. Epstein's firm represents in 20 separate state court lawsuits don't have entirely similar losses, he said. According to the motion to intervene, those former residents "seek to recover damages beyond those accounted for in the proposed settlement, including . . . emotional distress damages, full loss of property interests, full displacement costs, full attorneys' fees, treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract and punitive damages." Bruce Greenberg, representing the proposed class action members, said his clients' case "was always about personal property and never was about emotional distress." In court papers, lawyers for the proposed class members said the residents who filed individual lawsuits had opportunities to join the settlement discussions as they were happening. Those residents should not be allowed to delay the settlement process, they said, because the state cases "remain stalled." If approved, the class action settlement would allow former residents to file a claim form to be reviewed by an independent adjuster who would make the final decision about how much each family would receive from AvalonBay, court records say. The amount available to each member would not be capped and would provide "full recovery for all losses suffered in the fire," they said. Lawyers for the potential class members would be paid "substantially less" than what they have billed in the case, they said. Those who stay in the class action, if it is approved by the court, would give up any further claims against AvalonBay for the fire, court records say. Ronald Giller, a lawyer representing AvalonBay, was not immediately available for comment. AVENTURA, FL: Appeals Court Allows Use of Red Light Cameras ----------------------------------------------------------- Christopher O'Donnell, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that the cities of Aventura and Hollywood are separated by just a 5- mile stretch of U.S. 1 in South Florida. Nonetheless, appellate courts have ruled that Aventura can use cameras to catch red-light runners while Hollywood's cameras were declared unlawful and taken down. Those starkly conflicting opinions likely mean the future of red- light camera programs, including those in Tampa, Hillsborough County and Clearwater, will now be decided by the Florida Supreme Court. The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled on July 27 that Aventura's camera program does not break state law and called on the Supreme Court to provide a definitive ruling on the controversial traffic safety programs. Its decision is at odds with a 2014 ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal that Hollywood illegally delegated law enforcement functions to its camera provider. A three-judge panel noted the conflict in the July 27 ruling and said the state's highest court needs to resolve three questions centered on whether cities are letting camera providers determine guilt and issue citations. Typically, workers with the camera companies review video and photos and refer potential violations to sworn law enforcement officers, who then decide if a citation is warranted by clicking on "Accept." "Because of the broad public and institutional interest in red- light cameras, we certify three issues to the Florida Supreme Court as having great public importance," the ruling states. The Supreme Court is not obligated to accept the case but typically takes on legal issues where appellate courts have set conflicting legal precedent. It's a case that will be watched closely by about 70 Florida cities and counties that have used cameras to collect millions of dollars in fines. A consortium of traffic attorneys who won against Hollywood used their victory as the basis for a class-action lawsuit seeking reimbursement of the $158 citations. If successful, communities and the state could be forced to pay back millions of dollars to motorists. Roughly 963,000 tickets were issued in 2015 based on camera data, according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The state takes 58 percent of the $158 fine, which in 2015 added up to $54 million. Concern about the Aventura case led Attorney General Pam Bondi's office to intervene and side with the city. Aventura was appealing against a motorist who overturned his citation in circuit court by bringing up the Hollywood case. "It's a phenomenal ruling for local governments all over the state that want to keep operating their red-light camera programs," said Ed Guedes, an attorney representing Aventura. Tampa, which has about 55 cameras monitoring 22 intersections, was among several local municipalities named in the class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit is on hold while a test case between a motorist and the city of Oldsmar makes its way through the 2nd District Court of Appeal, which may also rule on the legality of camera programs. Tampa City Attorney Julia Mandell declined to comment on the July 27 ruling because of pending litigation but said a Supreme Court decision would provide some consistency for local governments. "It would be important for there to be clarity on this issue," she said. AVENTURA FINEST: "Francis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Dione Francis and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Aventura Finest Carwash and Service at the Mall, Inc., Guillermo Freile and Emilio G. Lourdes, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23206 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2016), seeks actual damages for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a car-washer/detailer. Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503.5131 Facsimile: (888) 270.5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Dorado" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ursula Ungaro of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Bank of America, N.A.'s motion to dismiss in the case captioned, VERONICA DORADO, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-CV- 21147-UU (S.D. Fla.). On March 8, 2011, Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Company loaned Plaintiff money for the purchase of a home in Lynwood, California. Defendant thereafter acquired Plaintiff's loan. Plaintiff's loan was insured by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and, therefore, subject to FHA regulations. In 2013, Plaintiff re-financed her loan and requested that Defendant provide her with a payoff statement. Defendant provided Plaintiff with a payoff statement dated March 19, 2013. Plaintiff alleges that the March 2013 Payoff Statement failed to comply with FHA regulations and that Defendant, therefore, breached the terms of the note by collecting post-payment interest after providing the inadequate March 2013 Payoff Statement. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated FHA regulations and consequently breached the Note because Defendant: (1) did not provide Plaintiff with a FHA-approved disclosure form before collecting post-payment interest; and (2) represented on its standard form that Plaintiff would be required to pay post-payment interest -- even if payment were to be made on the first of the month -- which contravenes FHA regulations. On March 20, 2013, Plaintiff paid Defendant the amount necessary to pay off her loan in full. On May 6, 2016, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint because: (1) there is no private right of action for violations of FHA or Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations; (2) Defendant had a pre-existing duty to follow HUD regulations, such that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for breach of contract; and (3) Plaintiff fails to allege facts to show damages caused by Defendant's alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff responded to each of Defendant's arguments and, moreover, argued that the Motion should be denied even if Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief because Plaintiff filed the case as a putative class action. In her Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Jq0zRE from Leagle.com, Judge Ungaro found that Plaintiff can state a claim for breach of contract based on incorporation of FHA or HUD regulations and that Plaintiffs stated as claim. The Court further found that the California law applies to the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract. Veronica Dorado is represented by Jeremy Simons Korch, Esq. -- jkorch@bastamron.com -- and Brett Michael Amron, Esq. -- bamron@bastamron.com -- BAST AMRON LLP She is also represented by: Fredric J. Bold, Jr., Esq. Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq. Michael B. Terry, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404)881-4100 - and - Adam Hoipkemier, Esq. Michael L. Werner, Esq. THE WERNER LAW FIRM 2860 Piedmont Rd. NE Atlanta, GA 30305 Tel: (770)837-342 Bank of America, N.A. is represented by Allen W. Burton, Esq. -- aburton@omm.com -- and William K. Pao, Esq. -- wpao@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP; Alex Joseph Sabo, II, Esq. -- asabo@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS: Court Awards Arlington $1.3MM in Atty. Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge A. Richard Caputo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania awarded Plaintiff $1,145,230.41 in attorneys' fees and $227,632.37 in costs in the case captioned, ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:02-CV-0134 (M.D. Pa.). Arlington and Bridgeport both manufacture and sell electrical connectors. After Arlington initiated a lawsuit against Bridgeport in 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Bridgeport agreed to be enjoined from making and selling certain products and their "colorable imitations." Bridgeport then redesigned its electrical connectors, and on February 3, 2012, Arlington sought a contempt order holding that these redesigned connectors violated the original agreement. A contempt hearing was held on October 25-26, 2012; December 17, 2012; and February 20, 2013. On March 19, 2013, The Court entered an order finding Bridgeport in contempt of the original injunction. Bridgeport appealed the contempt order to the Federal Circuit, but the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On November 25, 2013, Arlington moved for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing the injunction. On June 23, 2014, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Initial Fee Order) granting Plaintiff's motion but reducing their requested award in attorneys' fees from $2,380,704.65 to $1,527,632.35. The Court granted in full Plaintiff's request for $282,839.55 in costs. Bridgeport appealed the Initial Fee Order, and Arlington cross- appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Initial Fee Order without an opinion. Arlington now seeks attorneys' fees and costs incurred in post- trial proceedings in the District Court and on both appeals in the Federal Circuit. In his Memorandum dated June 28, 2016 available at https://is.gd/OpIpPO from Leagle.com, Judge Caputo found that $1,145,230.41 as the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees and affirmed the award of $227,632.37 finding that the records submitted are sufficiently detailed and that the costs are reasonable, for a total of $1,372,862.78. Arlington Industries, Inc. is represented by Jacob Z. Zambrzycki, Esq. -- jzambrzycki@crowell.com -- and Kathryn L. Clune, Esq. -- kclune@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING, Amanda J. Lavis, Esq. -- alavis@rhoads-sinon.com -- and Robert J. Tribeck, Esq. -- rtribeck@rhoads-sinon.com -- RHOADS & SINON LLP Bridgeport Fittings Inc. is represented by Alan M. Anderson, Esq. -- alananders@yahoo.com -- ALLEN ANDERSON LAW FIRM, LLC -- and Robert N. Gawlas, Jr., Esq. -- rgawlas@rjglaw.com -- ROSENN, JENKINS & GREENWALD, LLP BUDGET RENT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in "Humphreys" --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiff's motion to certify four classes and six subclasses in the case captioned, ANNE HUMPHREYS, Plaintiff, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-CV-1302 (E.D. Pa.). Anne Humphreys initiated the suit after a dispute arose over damage to a car that she rented from defendant Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. (Budget). After the plaintiff refused to pay the alleged debt, defendant Viking Collection Service, Inc. (Viking) attempted to collect the debt. The plaintiff has filed this action against both Budget and Viking and challenges the way in which Budget charges its customers for damage to its rental vehicles. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that two formulas Budget uses to calculate the damages owed are impermissible liquidated damages clauses. She also challenges Budget and Viking's collection practices with regards to these debts, arguing that these practices violate both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (PFCEUA). The plaintiff seeks to serve as a class representative for others who similarly declined LDW coverage and who Budget charged for damage to a rental car. Ambitiously, she moves to certify four classes and six subclasses pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She proposes that the classes be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his Memorandum dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ODSXR4 from Leagle.com, Judge Stengel found that the plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating that the commonality requirement of Rule 23 is satisfied and that the plaintiff's proposed nationwide classes would not be manageable. Anne Humphrey is represented by Ann Miller, Esq. -- alm@miller.law -- LAW OFFICE OF ANN MILLER; Arthur Stock, Esq. -- astock@bm.net -- Shoshana Michelle Savett, Esq. -- stsavett@bm.net -- and Todd S. Collins, Esq. -- tcollins@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.; Daniel M. Harris, Esq. -- dan@nmilawyers.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL HARRIS Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. And Viking Collection Service, Inc. are represented by Bridget E. Montgomery, Esq. -- bmontgomery@eckertseamans.com -- Adam M. Shienvold, Esq. -- ashienvold@eckertseamans.com -- Carol L. Press, Esq. -- cpress@eckertseamans.com -- and Ryan Lee Stauffer, Esq. -- rstauffer@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT BUDGET RENT: Humphreys Appeals Ruling From E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ Anne Humphreys filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit captioned Anne Humphreys v. Budget Rent A Car System Inc, et al., Case No. 2-10-cv-01302, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The original lawsuit accused the Defendants of overbilling Pennsylvania residents, who rent Budget cars in Florida, decline Loss Damage Waiver and then return the cars in a damaged condition. The appellate case is captioned as Anne Humphreys v. Budget Rent A Car System Inc, et al., Case No. 16-8056, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Petitioner-Plaintiff Anne Humphreys, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Todd S. Collins, Esq. Shoshana Savett, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3071 Facsimile: (215) 875-4636 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net stsavett@bm.net - and - Ann Miller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANN MILLER 1657 The Fairway #132 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 238-0468 Facsimile: (215) 405-2653 E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com Respondents BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC. and VIKING COLLECTION SERVICE INC. are represented by: Bridget E. Montgomery, Esq. Adam M. Shienvold, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 237-6054 Facsimile: (717) 237-6019 E-mail: bmontgomery@eckertseamans.com ashienvold@eckertseamans.com - and - Carol L. Press, Esq. Keith E. Smith, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 50 South 16th Street Two Liberty Place, 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 851-8439 E-mail: cpress@eckertseamans.com ksmith@eckertseamans.com BURCH & COMPANY: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Demurrer ------------------------------------------------------ Presiding Judge Kathleen E. O'Leary of the California Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments in the case captioned, ARI-SCC 3, LLC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BURCH & COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. G050847 (Cal. App.). The case concerns Plaintiffs' failed multi-million dollar investment in commercial real estate. In 2005 and 2006, Plaintiffs invested in five office buildings known as Shoreview Corporate Center in Shoreview, Minnesota. The transaction was promoted by ARI-SCC, LLC (the Company), and its related entities and affiliates, referred to collectively by the parties as the "ARGUS Defendants." In 2012, Plaintiffs (in a class action complaint) sued 30 defendants but only four, on the periphery of the transaction, are involved in this appeal after the court sustained their demurrers and entered judgments of dismissal. The four defendants are real estate broker CBRE, Inc., securities broker and dealer, Burch & Company (Burch), LaSalle Bank, N.A. (LaSalle), and the law firm Hirschler Fleischer (Hirschler). Plaintiffs amended their complaint several times in response to motion practice by the Defendants. The operative TAC alleges 15 causes of action and groups the Defendants into three categories. First, there are seven groups titled "Class Defendants" because they are named by the "Class Plaintiffs." Second, there are "Non-Class Defendants" subject to individual claims. Third, there are "Doe Defendants." This appeal concerns only four "Class Defendants," namely, CBRE, LaSalle, Burch, and Hirschler. The trial court sustained Defendants' demurrers to the TAC, without leave to amend, in part, on the basis that all causes of action were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court stated that in addition to sustaining the demurrers on statute of limitations grounds, the court also considered and ruled on causes of action for alternative grounds alleged by Defendants. On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the ruling that maintaining they timely filed their complaint and adequately complied with the delayed discovery rule. In his Opinion dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/TXjzWn from Leagle.com, Judge O'Leary found that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer because Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of alleging the necessary facts for the delayed discovery rule to apply. ARI-SCC 3, LLC, et at. are represented by Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq. -- kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- Nicole M. Catanzarite, Esq. -- ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- and Eric V. Anderton, Esq. -- eanderton@catanzarite.com -- CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION Burch & Company, Inc. is represented by Joel S. Miliband, Esq. -- jmiliband@brownrudnick.com - BROWN RUDNICK LLP -- Anthony J. Durone, Esq. -- adurone@berkowitzoliver.com -- and Jennifer B. Wieland, Esq. -- jwieland@berkowitzoliver.com -- BERKOWITZ OLIVER WILLIAMS SHAW & EISENBRANT CBRE, Inc. is represented by Maribeth Annaguey, Esq. -- mannaguey@linerlaw.com -- and Kathryn L. McCann, Esq. -- kmccann@linerlaw.com -- LINER Hirschler Fleischer, APC is represented by Mark S. Lester, Esq. -- mlester@lc-law-llp.com -- David Cantrell, Esq. -- dcantrell@lc- law-llp.com -- and Colin A. Northcutt, Esq. -- cnorthcutt@lc-law- llp.com -- LESTER & CANTRELL Lasalle Bank, N.A. is represented by Peter B. Morrison, Esq. -- peter.morrison@skadden.com -- and Kevin J. Minnick, Esq. -- kminnick@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM CAMP GLADIATOR: Trainer Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Stromgren, writing for Club Industry, reports that a trainer for Camp Gladiator, Austin, Texas, has filed a class action lawsuit against the fitness boot camp franchise over alleged unpaid wages. Shannon Schoellhorn filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Dallas on July 15 alleging Camp Gladiator violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay minimum wage to intern trainers and failing to pay overtime to primary trainers. The suit, which seeks class certification and jury trial, also seeks damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DPTA). Camp Gladiator's attorneys are reviewing the allegations, but the company's policy is not to comment on pending litigation, a company spokesperson told Club Industry. The suit contends that Camp Gladiator interns, who are considered interns because they are in a Camp Gladiator training program to become a primary trainer, were not paid any wages for compensable, non-exempt work performed for Camp Gladiator in a "willful" violation of the FLSA, according to the complaint. The internships can last from six to 10 weeks, depending on how long potential trainers can complete the assigned tasks. The complaint alleges that intern trainers are not classified as employees as they should be, and Camp Gladiator does not meet Department of Labor standards for unpaid internships. Prospective Camp Gladiator trainers must first apply in writing to the company and attend an information session where there are often field interviews, according to the complaint. Trainers who make it through these two steps are invited to begin the unpaid internship, which consists of at least 14 required tasks that must be completed to become a primary trainer, according to the complaint. Those tasks include sales, workout program creation, attending all-trainer meetings with current trainers and submission of a business plan, according to the complaint. After individuals pass the internship, they become primary trainers. The suit contends Camp Gladiator misclassifies its primary trainers as independent contractors under factors set by the Texas Workforce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Camp Gladiator does not pay its primary trainers overtime after 40 hours of work in a week, and the company does not keep records of employee time worked or make attempts to comply with the FLSA, according to the complaint. The suit claims that Camp Gladiator is a "business opportunity" under the Texas Business Opportunity Act (BOA) but is not registered as such with the Texas Secretary of State, which is a violation of the DPTA. Camp Gladiator disseminates statements that materially misrepresent the character of service it offers to potential trainers and represents that its service has characteristics and benefits that it does not have, according to the complaint, detailing statements made on digital platforms. The classes proposed in the lawsuit would be interns and primary trainers. The intern class would cover all individuals who performed any amount of unpaid work as a Camp Gladiator Intern. The primary trainer class would cover all individuals who have performed more than 40 hours of work in a single week but were not paid overtime beyond the 40 hours. Mr. Schoellhorn and any potential intern or trainer class members are seeking to recover an amount equal to the overtime payments with an equal amount as liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. The class period for both interns and trainers begins three years before the date an individual class member opts in to the class by filing a consent form with the court. Mr. Schoellhorn also is seeking declarations that Camp Gladiator's interns and trainers are non-exempt employees under the FLSA and permanent injunctions to be entered against Camp Gladiator. The permanent injunctions would formally reclassify Camp Gladiator interns and trainers as non-exempt employees, notification of the reclassification to trainers and interns, and ensure Camp Gladiator is complying with the reclassification. Under the DPTA claim, Mr. Schoellhorn is seeking additional treble damages and an injunction under the Texas Business & Communication Code. The injunction would require that Camp Gladiator comply with the BOA by registering with the Texas Secretary of State, amend all trainer recruiting materials to accurately describe the nature of the primary trainer opportunity, and cease use of all inaccurate or misleading trainer recruitment materials, according to the complaint. CARLTON MANOR: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "McKinney" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Debi McKinney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Debi McKinney v. Carlton Manor Nursing, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00279, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes. The appellate case is captioned as Debi McKinney v. Carlton Manor Nursing, et al., Case No. 16-3895, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 210 S. Washington Ave. Post Office Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36652 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 E-mail: vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com CEMEX: Must Face Class Action Over Fuel, Environmental Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Bolado, Jacob Fischler, Alex Wolf and Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, report that a Florida federal judge on July 26 denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action against building materials supplier Cemex, ruling that Deere Construction LLC's allegations that Cemex charged deceptive surcharge fees to clients are substantive enough to proceed with the case. U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga denied Cemex's bid to toss the suit that claims its fuel and environmental surcharges are merely profit-makers used to unfairly fleece its customers. Cemex argued that the surcharges were clearly laid out in contracts with its clients, but Judge Altonaga pointed out that in the complaint, Deere says the issue isn't that it didn't know about the surcharges but that they weren't used for their stated purposes. "What is allegedly deceptive is that the so-called 'fuel surcharges' and 'environmental charges,' labeled as such by defendants, were not in fact designed to cover anything related to fuel or the environment. Defendant chose the two adjectives that describe the fees being assessed," the judge said. The original complaint was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence King in May, who found that it was "light on actual facts and rife with conclusory allegations masquerading as facts." Judge King nixed several of the claims with prejudice, but allowed Deere to amend two claims of deceptive trade practices, giving the company a chance to show it had facts to illustrate the charges were improper. Deere had filed suit in November, claiming an environmental fee and fuel surcharge billed by Cemex's Florida subsidiary are deceptive and violated state law because they are not tied to actual fuel or environmental costs. Earlier in July, Cemex asked Judge Altonaga to sanction Deere for bringing the allegedly meritless claims. Cemex attempted to bolster the legitimacy of its charges in its motion for sanctions, saying its fuel surcharges are determined based on the change in diesel fuel prices contained in the Federal Energy Administration's weekly reports for the operating region and are not "arbitrary," as Deere alleges. An attorney for Deere declined to comment. A representative for Cemex could not immediately be reached for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Harley S. Tropin -- hst@kttlaw.com -- Adam M. Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com -- Javier Lopez -- jal@kttlaw.com --and Tal J. Lifsitz of Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton LLP, J. Matthew Stephens -- mstephens@mmlaw.net -- of McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, and Lance A. Harke of Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP. Cemex is represented by Michael Nachwalter -- mn@kennynachwalter.com -- Jeffrey T. Foreman -- jtf@kennynachwalter.com -- and Janelle M. Ans of Kenny Nachwalter PA, and John A. DeVault -- jad@bedellfirm.com -- III and Patrick P. Coll of Bedell Dittmar DeVault Pillans & Coxe PA. The case is Deere Construction LLC v. Cemex Construction Materials Florida LLC et al., case number 1:15-cv-24375, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. COLUSA, CA: Ex-Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that two current county of Colusa employees have filed a class- action complaint alleging that they were not paid overtime. Miles Lewis and Cheri Erdelt filed a complaint on behalf of all similarly situated individuals on July 25 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the county of Colusa citing violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they worked for more than 40 hours per week without being paid any overtime wages by the defendants. The plaintiffs hold the county of Colusa responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs any overtime premiums at a rate of time-and-one-half in violation of the FLSA. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek order for a complete and accurate accounting of all compensation due to plaintiffs, award plaintiffs all monetary damages, including back pay and liquidated damages plus interest; all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. They are represented by Gary Messing and Jason H. Jasmine -- jason@majlabor.com -- of Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP in Sacramento. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case number 2:16-cv-01745-JAM-EFB CONSUMER CREDIT: Faces TCPA Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------ Wadi Reformado reports that a consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a debt settlement business alleging it called him without his permission to solicit services. Jason Alan filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Consumer Credit Card Relief LLC, Jenssen Varela, Luis Vecchi and Does 1 through 10 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in January, he sustained damages and charges for incoming calls from the defendants in an attempt to solicit services. The plaintiff holds Consumer Credit Card Relief, LLC, Jenssen Varela, Luis Vecchi and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the plaintiff has never provided any personal information to the defendants and never gave his consent to call him. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory damages for each and every violation, $1,500 as treble damages for each and every violation and any other relief as the court deems just. He is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Beverly Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:16-cv-05447-BRO-KS CRAB ADDISON: Plaintiff May Withdraw Summary Judgment Bid --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Charles J. Siragusa of the Western District of New York granted plaintiff's request to withdraw the motion for partial summary judgment in the case CHRISTOPHER HART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRAB ADDISON, INC. d/b/a JOE'S CRAB SHACK, IGNITE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., RAYMOND A. BLANCHETTE, III, KEVIN COTTINGIM, and RODNEY MORRIS, Defendants, No. 13-CV-6458 CJS (W.D.N.Y.) Christopher Hart filed a collective/class action suit, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the minimum- wage statutes of states including New York, Maryland, Missouri, Illinois and Arizona. The court granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective action, and after the deadline for opting- in to the action had passed, Hart filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the FLSA claims. Defendants cross-moved to strike Hart's application, citing the one-way intervention rule, inasmuch as plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification of their state-law claims. On February 12, 2016, Hart wrote to the court requesting permission to withdraw his application. Hart indicated that he wished to withdraw the application until after the Seventh Circuit issues a decision in Schaefer v. Walker Bros. Enters., which involves FLSA tip-credit and dual job issues similar to the present action. Defendants opposed Hart's request. On May 4, 2016, the court received further communications from Hart, supplementing his request to withdraw his application for partial summary judgment. Hart indicated that the court should allow him to withdraw his application, because subsequent to oral argument he learned that some of the potential FLSA collective- action members were not given notice of the action, due to errors on defendants' part. Hart indicated that defendants had provided plaintiffs' counsel with an inaccurate list of putative class members. Defendants again opposed Hart's request to withdraw his motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants contend that Hart is merely hoping to avoid an unfavorable ruling and that even if some of the FLSA collective action members did not receive notice, such fact would not lessen the applicability of the one-way intervention rule. Judge Siragusa granted Hart's request to withdraw the motion for partial summary judgment and denied as moot the defendants' cross- motion to strike. A copy of Judge Siragusa's decision and order dated July 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/ewq6vTfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. Jared Kimball Cook, Esq. Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz, Esq. Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq. Michael J. Lingle, Esq. Thomas & Solomon LLP The Strong Todd House 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Telephone: 585-272-0540 Facsimile: 585-272-0574 Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Howard Ruzal -- jruzal@ebglaw.com -- Kenneth John Kelly -- kkelly@ebglaw.com -- at Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.; Melissa Jill Osipoff -- mosipoff@fisherphillips.com -- Brian Jeffrey Gershengorn -- bgershengorn@fisherphillips.com -- Seth Diamant Kaufman -- skaufman@fisherphillips.com -- at Fisher & Phillips LLP CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants Final Approval of "Reyes" Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff Francisco Nieves Reyes' motion for final approval of a class action settlement in the case captioned, FRANCISCO NIEVES REYES, Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-00964-MJS (E.D. Cal.). The action was filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court on January 30, 2013. It initially was removed to federal court on March 21, 2013 on grounds of federal question jurisdiction, but remanded on February 12, 2014. Plaintiffs asserts claims for failure to pay vacation wages owed upon termination, failure to pay all wages owed upon termination, and failure to pay final wages timely upon termination, in violation of the California Labor Code; unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code; and civil penalties under the California Labor Code's Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). These claims arise from Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants (1) calculate the amount of employees' accrued vacation on a monthly basis and (2) do not pay accrued but unused holiday pay timely upon termination. The parties agreed to mediate with respect to these claims and, on July 30, 2015, during mediation before Barry Winograd, Esq., the parties reached agreement on material terms of a class action settlement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Defendants agree to pay the gross settlement amount of $400,000 to resolve the claims of any participating class members. The Settlement Class consists of all persons whose employment at CVS's La Habra, California or Patterson, California Distribution Centers ended any time between January 30, 2009 and October 31, 2015, and who were subject to a collective bargaining agreement, not including the La Habra, California Warehouse Agreements. On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff Francisco Nieves Reyes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated moved for final approval of a class action settlement. Counsel Gregory Karasik appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, and counsel Jennifer Zargarof appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants. In his Order dated June 28, 2016 available at https://is.gd/PtsxrV from Leagle.com, Judge Seng found that the terms of the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered that payment from the settlement fund of settlement administration fees be made to Simpluris, Inc. in the amount of $6,500 in accordance with the Settlement, $1,000 to the Labor Workforce Development Agency, $9,004.54 to Plaintiffs for litigation costs, $100,000 for reasonable attorney's fees and $5,000 as a class representative incentive payment to the named Plaintiff Mr. Reyes. Francisco Nieves Reyes is represented by Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- KARASIK LAW FIRM CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Caremark RX LLC are represented by Douglas Roger Hart, Esq. -- dhart@sidley.com -- Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. -- jzargarof@sidley.com -- and Francis S. Lam, Esq. -- flam@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP DANA CORP: November 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 8 issued the following statement regarding the Dana Corporation Securities Litigation: PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND; SEIU PENSION PLANS MASTER TRUST; and WEST VIRGINIA LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MICHAEL J. BURNS and ROBERT C. RICHTER, Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-07393-JGC CLASS ACTION Senior Judge James G. Carr SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES1 OF DANA CORPORATION BETWEEN APRIL 21, 2004 AND OCTOBER 7, 2005 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, that a hearing will be held on November 18, 2016, at 12:00 p.m., before the Honorable James G. Carr, Senior United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, James M. Ashley and Thomas W.L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse, 1716 Spielbusch Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43604, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Litigation for $64 million should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Class Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and Class Representatives' awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF DANA CORPORATION DURING THE TIME PERIOD COMMENCING ON APRIL 21, 2004, AND ENDING ON OCTOBER 7, 2005, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OF THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF DANA CORPORATION DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Dana Corporation Investor Action, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30224, College Station, TX 77842-3224, or on the Internet at www.DanaCorporationInvestorAction.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail (postmarked no later than October 31, 2016) or online no later than October 31, 2016, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you purchased Dana Corporation's Publicly Traded Securities during the Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is postmarked no later than October 3, 2016, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class in the manner set forth in the Notice will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and Class Representatives' request for their time and expenses must be received by each of the following recipients no later than October 3, 2016: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION James M. Ashley and Thomas W.L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse 1716 Spielbusch Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 Class Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP DEBRA J. WYMAN JEFFREY D. LIGHT 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP JOEL W. STERNMAN DEAN N. RAZAVI 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Class Counsel at the address listed above or visit the website listed above. DATED: July 19, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Publicly Traded Securities means Dana Corporation's common stock and the following Bonds: 6.5% Bond issued on March 16, 1998, with a maturity date of March 15, 2008 (CUSIP 235811AH9); 7.0% Bond issued on March 16, 1998, with a maturity date of March 15, 2028 (CUSIP 235811AJ5); 6.5% Bond issued on March 3, 1999, with a maturity date of March 1, 2009 (CUSIP 235811AK2); 7.0% Bond issued on March 3, 1999, with a maturity date of March 1, 2029 (CUSIP 235811AL0); 9.0% Bond issued on February 20, 2002, with a maturity date of August 25, 2011 (CUSIP 235811AU0); 10.125% Bond issued on October 16, 2002, with a maturity date of March 15, 2010 (CUSIP 235811AX4); 5.85% Bond issued on May 26, 2005, with a maturity date of January 15, 2015 (CUSIP 235811BA3); 5.85% Bond issued on December 10, 2004, with a maturity date of January 15, 2015 (CUSIP 235811AY2); and 8.375% Bond issued by Dana Credit Corp., a subsidiary of Dana Corporation, on August 22, 2000, with a maturity date of August 15, 2007 (CUSIP 23581MAB6). DANTE DEMARTINO: "Moslem" Files Request for Judicial Intervention ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on July 20, 2016, in the case captioned Mehdi Moslem a/k/a Michael Moslem and Accel Motors, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. Dante DeMartino, Drew Smith and John Doe, Defendants, Case No. 705768/2016 (N.Y. Sup., May 16, 2016). The case asserts breach of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff seeks to recover sole ownership of Accel shares. Moslem alleges that his shares in Accel were fraudulently transferred in order to conceal debt from creditors. DeMartino opened a line of credit against the assets of the corporation, without the consent or knowledge of Plaintiff, forcing Plaintiff to refinance the corporation. Drew Smith refused to tender any consideration for the transfer of DeMartino's shares in Accel Motors. Mehdi Moslem owns Accel Motors, Inc., a car dealership located at 30-15 Thomson Ave., Long Island City, New York 11101. He issued 51 shares of Accel to DeMartino. DeMartino entered into a real estate partnership with Drew Smith, allegedly using Accel assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elias C. Schwartz, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF ELIAS C. SCHWARTZ, PLLC 343 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: 516-487-0175 Defendant is represented by: Seth Ginsberg, Esq. 299 Broadway Ste. 1405 New York, NY 10007 - and - Michael L. Macklowitz, Esq. 291 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 227-6655 DISNEY: Labaton Sucharow Mulls Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Ley, writing for Deadspin, reports that ESPN's recent loss of three million cable subscribers, which was followed by a significant drop in its parent company's share price, has attracted the attention of a high-powered law firm that specializes in bringing class-action lawsuits on behalf of defrauded investors. On Nov. 25, 2015, Disney's stock price was at $118.67 per share. That same day, Disney submitted its annual 10-K filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which revealed that the ESPN cable network--80 percent owned by Disney--had lost three million subscribers in the fiscal year that ended on Oct. 3. When the market reopened on Nov. 27, Disney's stock went into a sustained free fall, reaching a low of $88.85 per share on Feb. 10. Currently, Disney's stock price is sitting at $96.42 per share. ESPN is Disney's greatest profit center, and the subscriber loss was enough to send Disney investors into a mild panic; it was also enough to get the Labaton Sucharow law firm thinking about a potential securities fraud suit. Sources tell Deadspin that Labaton Sucharow has reached out to former ESPN employees in an attempt to gather information that could be used in a potential class-action suit against Disney. According to a source, the firm is particularly interested in any internal ESPN or Disney documents -- emails, meeting notes, slideshow presentations -- that could prove Disney knew the exact severity of the subscriber loss during the 2015 fiscal year, but chose not to reveal it to investors. The question at hand is if Disney executives knowingly misled investors by publicly expressing confidence in ESPN's subscriber base while they were privately aware that a big drop in subscribers had occurred. According to Adam Pritchard, a University of Michigan law professor with an expertise in securities fraud, Labaton Sucharow would have to clear two hurdles in any lawsuit. First, they would need to prove that Disney was knowingly misleading investors or acting recklessly in not revealing the subscriber loss before the end of fiscal year 2015. Second, they would need to prove that the subscriber loss that was revealed in the SEC filing in November was the driving force behind the drop in Disney's stock price, which certainly seems to be the case given how most market analysts reacted to the news. "If Disney executives knew ESPN had suffered a substantial loss of subscriptions in fiscal year 2015, they will need a credible explanation for why they didn't reveal that loss to investors before the end of the year," said Mr. Pritchard. No official complaint has been filed yet, but it's not uncommon for firms that specialize in securities fraud cases to take a hard look at companies that suffer sharp and unexpected stock hits. In such cases, what a firm like Labaton Sucharow is looking for are former employees of the company in question who can tell them whether the bad news that led to the sudden drop in stock price-- the three million lost ESPN subscribers, in this case--was actively concealed by the company. It's not hard to see why Labaton Sucharow would set its sights on Disney, which spent the end of the 2015 fiscal year speaking only in the vaguest terms about ESPN's subscriber base while assuring investors that the cable network was in great shape. Disney has not yet returned a request for comment. Labaton Sucharow declined to comment on this story. The SEC, as is standard, also declined to comment on whether Disney is currently under investigation. On Aug. 4, 2015, Disney sent out a press release reporting its record third-quarter earnings of $2.5 billion. The release stated that the operating income of Disney's collection of cable networks had increased by seven percent for the quarter, and that such growth was partly driven by ESPN: Operating results at ESPN were driven by growth in affiliate revenue, partially offset by lower advertising revenue. The increase in affiliate revenues was due to contractual rate increases and an increase in subscribers. The increase in subscribers was due to the new SEC Network launched in August 2014, partially offset by a decline in subscribers at certain of our networks. That same day, Disney brass held a conference call with investors, in which CEO Bob Iger admitted that ESPN was suffering "modest" subscriber losses in the 2015 fiscal year, but refused to share any specific figures despite being asked a number of questions about the losses. The press release's vague language and Mr. Iger's inability to offer up hard numbers did nothing to dispel the specter of ESPN subscriber loss. That uncertainty was enough to send Disney's stock on a nine percent tumble over the course of one day. The stock price eventually rebounded, and when it came time for Disney to report on its 2015 fourth-quarter earnings, the language used to describe ESPN's performance was just as opaque as it was in August. From a Disney press release dated Nov. 5, 2015: Operating income at Cable Networks increased $381 million to $1.7 billion for the quarter due to an increase at ESPN and, to a lesser extent, A&E Television Networks (A & E) and the Disney Channels. The increase at ESPN reflected higher affiliate and advertising revenues, partially offset by an increase in programming costs. Affiliate revenue growth was driven by contractual rate increases and an increase in subscribers. The increase in subscribers was due to a full quarter of the SEC Network, which launched in August 2014, partially offset by a decline in subscribers at certain of our networks. Another conference call with investors was held that day, and the very first question Mr. Iger was asked was about his comments on ESPN subscriber losses during the Aug. 5 call, which had resulted in that massive one-day stock drop. Iger was asked if he wanted to clarify or amend those comments, and this is how he answered: "Okay. Well, regarding your first question, there's nothing that I would either retract or in any way change. To just reiterate what we did, we updated guidance that we had given in 2014 about ESPN's sub fees, and that guidance holds today. We also decided to be candid, I think maybe refreshingly so, about what the industry was experiencing in terms of sub losses during roughly the last period. And we feel that there certainly should be no reason to panic over comments like that." "The fact remains that we're in an environment today that's definitely changing. It's different than the environment before. There's a lot more competition for people's time. With that interestingly enough, we have an opportunity to distribute our content in many different ways than we ever have before--in more different ways than we ever have before. So there's not only a silver lining, but there's a glass half full perspective on this, and that's what we have. "We also know, specifically related to ESPN, that not only is the brand strong, which is evidenced, by the way, in the ratings -- 50 of the top cable shows in fiscal 2015 -- of the 50 top cable shows in fiscal 2015, 26 were ESPN's -- and in addition to that, live television and live sports in particular is incredibly strong in this environment, demand for it has probably never been greater interestingly enough. "So that's I guess a long way around my saying that we don't have anything to really add to the comments that we've made. We feel bullish about ESPN and ESPN's business. We like the environment because we think long-term it gives us more opportunities. I should also add that ESPN has been at the forefront of using technology to create more compelling product for its consumers and to be present on more platforms. "Twenty days later, Disney filed its 2015 fiscal year earnings report to the SEC. That report revealed--via Nielsen estimates-- that the number of ESPN subscribers had dropped to 92 million in 2015, a decrease of three million subscribers from the previous year's filing. Since then, Disney's stock price has yet to climb back above $106 per share." DOUBLE J SALOON: "Calderon" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Manuel Calderon, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Double J Saloon, Inc. d/b/a El Chaparro Mexican Bar & Grill, Defendant, Case No. 4:16- cv-02210 (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2016), seeks minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of this action and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant owns and/or operates a restaurant in Magnolia, Texas known as El Chaparro Mexican Bar & Grill where Plaintiff was hired as a busboy. Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 Email: bdebes@eeoc.net DUANE READE: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN ESPINAL, JONATHAN CHIN, GLADYS AIDOO, CRAIG ROSE, and SAUD SANADY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. DUANE READE INC. and WALGREEN CO., the Defendants, Case No. 513146/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover damages and attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' discrimination against the Plaintiff on the basis of race and/or color in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law. Duane Reade, a subsidiary of the Walgreens Boots Alliance, is a chain of pharmacy and convenience stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael J. Willemin, Esq. Kenneth D. Sommer, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257 6800 Facsimile: (212) 257 6845 E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com ksommer@wigdorlaw.com EATON CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on July 25 disclosed that on July 22, 2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan ("Local 449") against Eaton Corporation plc ("Eaton" or the "Company"), and certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Eaton Corporation plc, No. 16-cv-5894 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Eaton between November 13, 2013 and July 28, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's unencumbered ability to divest its automobile-part manufacturing business. Eaton is an Ireland-based manufacturer of engineered products marketed to customers in the industrial, agricultural, construction, aerospace, and vehicle markets. For most of its 100 year history, Eaton primarily was a vehicle component manufacturer. Since 2008, however, the Company has been making strategic shifts away from its vehicle business, while growing its electrical component businesses. In 2012, the Company engaged in a merger (the "Merger") with the Irish-headquartered Cooper Industries plc. ("Cooper"), which reincorporated the Company in Ireland. Following the Merger, and during the Class Period, in response to questions from securities analysts about the effect of the Merger on the Company's ability to spin-off its business, Eaton executives falsely assured investors and the market of the continued feasibility of divesting the Company's automobile-part manufacturing business on a tax-free basis. This prospect was key to investors' and analysts' ability to value the Company. As a result, Eaton and its executives artificially inflated the price of Eaton stock. On July 29, 2014, Eaton Chief Executive Officer Alexander M. Cutler ("Cutler") finally informed investors that, contrary to the Company's prior assurances, Eaton could not feasibly divest its vehicle business until late 2017 due to tax-law restrictions related to the Merger with Cooper. Defendant Cutler further revealed that the Company had been "well aware" of these restrictions "all along." This disclosure caused a material decline in the price of Eaton stock. If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of Eaton during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than September 23, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com You can view a copy of the complaint online at https://is.gd/dbaVxp Local 449 is represented by Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE. FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- The Southeast Texas Record reports that a gun mechanic has filed a class-action lawsuit against his former employer alleging he was not paid overtime wages. Darnell Senegal filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 15 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas against Fairfield Industries Inc. alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his employment with the defendant between August 1994 and May, he regularly worked longer than 40 hours per week without receiving proper overtime compensation. The plaintiff holds Fairfield Industries Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly refused to pay his extra hours worked at a rate not less than one- and-one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours and failed to maintain accurate time and pay records. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an award for all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and all such other and further relief to which he is justly entitled. He is represented by Melissa Moore and Curt Hesse of Moore & Associates in Houston. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number 4:16-cv-02113 FLYING FOOD: "Menjivar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- NURY MENJIVAR, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLYING FOOD GROUP, LLC, a limited liability company; FLYING FOOD GROUP PACIFIC, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, the inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest for Defendants' failure to provide meal periods or pay meal period premium wages, failure to provide rest periods or pay rest period premium wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, as well as reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code. Flying Food is a large-scale catering company providing airline catering meals and snacks for over 70 leading airlines and top retail partners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq. LA VI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432 0000 Facsimile: (310) 432 0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfinn.com arosenkranz@lelawfinn.com FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces "Cryer" Class Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan v. FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan Investment Committee, and DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-04265-EDL (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2016), alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Plan to invest in funds offered and managed by Franklin Templeton, when better-performing and lower-cost funds were available. The Plan is sponsored by Franklin Resources, Inc., and was established on October 1, 1981, and amended on October 1, 2010. The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Franklin Resources is a global investment management organization known as Franklin Templeton Investments. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were motivated to cause the Plan to invest in Franklin Funds to benefit Franklin Templeton's investment management business. Franklin Templeton is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in the city and county of San Mateo, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com - and - Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com mkindall@ikrlaw.com - and - Joseph A. Creitz, Esq. Lisa S. Serebin, Esq. CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP 250 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 466-3090 Facsimile: (415) 513-4475 E-mail: joe@creitzserebin.com lisa@creitzserebin.com GE CAPITAL: December 19 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Abdeljalil, et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:12-02078-JAH-MDD If you received automated calls to your cell phone from Synchrony Bank, formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank (or any of its agents or affiliates) ("Synchrony") from August 22, 2008 through June 16, 2016, you may be entitled to benefits under a class action settlement. A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. A proposed settlement will provide a total of $7,000,000 (the "Settlement Fund") to fully settle and release claims of persons to whom calls were placed on their cell phones by Synchrony using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice during the time period set forth above, where the call was regarding an account not belonging to that person and who did not provide the number or otherwise consent to the call (the "Settlement Class"). Plaintiffs Muhammed Abdeljalil, Richard Springer, Joseph A. Hofer and Bradley Moore (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that these calls violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. (the "TCPA"). Synchrony denies Plaintiffs' allegations and denies any wrongdoing whatsoever. By entering into the settlement, Synchrony has not conceded the truth or validity of any of the claims against it. The Settlement Fund shall be used to pay all amounts related to the settlement, including awards to Settlement Class Members who submit a valid and timely claim form to receive payment ("Claim Form"), attorneys' fees and costs to attorneys representing Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class ("Class Counsel"), any service awards to Plaintiffs and the costs of notice and administration of the settlement. Monies remaining in the Settlement Fund if checks are uncashed will be distributed to a charity approved by the Court only if subsequent distributions to Settlement Class Members are not economically feasible. No amount of the Settlement Fund will revert to Synchrony. Your rights and options, and the deadlines to exercise them, are explained in this Notice. Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read this Notice carefully YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT: SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM If you are eligible to submit a Claim and submit a valid Claim Form by November 14, 2016, you will receive a payment and will give up your rights to sue Synchrony and/or any other released parties on a released claim. Claim Forms may be submitted by mail to Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43420, Providence, RI 02940-3420 or through the settlement website at www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com EXCLUDE YOURSELF OR "OPT-OUT" OF THE SETTLEMENT If you ask to be excluded, you will not receive a payment. This is the only option that allows you to pursue your own claims against Synchrony and/or other released parties in the future. The deadline for excluding yourself is October 14, 2016. OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT Write to the Court about why you believe the settlement is unfair in any respect. The deadline for objecting is October 14, 2016. To obtain a benefit from this settlement, you must still submit a Claim Form. If you submit only an objection, you will not receive any benefit from the settlement and you will give up your rights to sue Synchrony and/or any other released parties on a released claim. DO NOTHING If you do nothing, you will not receive any monetary award and you will give up your rights to sue Synchrony and/or any other released parties on a released claim. GO TO THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement. To speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must file a document which complies with the requirements set forth on the Settlement Website. These rights and options--and the deadlines to exercise them--are explained in this Notice. The Court still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. Payments will be made if the Court approves the settlement and after any appeals are resolved. Please be patient. BASIC INFORMATION 1. What is the purpose of this Notice? The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that a proposed settlement has been reached in the lawsuit entitled Abdeljalil, et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank, U.S.D.C. Southern District of California, Case No. 3:12-02078 (S.D. Cal.). Because your rights will be affected by this settlement, it is extremely important that you read this Notice carefully. This Notice summarizes the settlement and your rights under it. Additional information regarding the settlement is available on the Settlement Website. 2. What does it mean if I received an email or postcard about this settlement? If you received an email or postcard describing this settlement, that is because Synchrony's records indicate that you may be a member of the Settlement Class in this action. 3. What is this class action lawsuit about? In a class action, one or more people called class representatives (here, Plaintiffs) sue on behalf of people who allegedly have similar claims. This group is called a class and the persons included are called class members. One court resolves the issues for all of the class members, except for those who exclude themselves from the class. Here, Plaintiffs claim Synchrony violated the TCPA by placing calls to cellular telephones from August 22, 2008 through June 16, 2016, through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express consent. Synchrony denies these allegations and denies any claim of wrongdoing. The Court has conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The Honorable John A. Houston is in charge of this action. 4. Why is there a settlement? The Court has not decided in favor of Plaintiffs or Synchrony. Instead, both sides agreed to this settlement, thereby avoiding the risk and cost of further litigation and ensuring Settlement Class Members will receive some compensation for their claims. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel think the settlement is best for all persons in the Settlement Class. WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS? 5. How do I know if I am a part of the Settlement Class? The Court has certified a Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons nationwide whose cellular telephone number, at any time on or after August 22, 2008 through June 16, 2016, Synchrony (or any of its agents or entities) called using an artificial or prerecorded voice and/or using any automatic telephone dialing system and where the person called was called regarding an account that did not belong to him or her and did not provide the number to Synchrony or is not a person who had consented to receiving calls at that cellular telephone number. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Judge to whom the action is assigned and any member of the Judge's staff and immediate family, as well as all persons who are validly excluded from the Settlement Class. "Settlement Class Member" is defined as any person in the Settlement Class who is not validly excluded from the Settlement Class. If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can visit other sections of the Settlement Website, www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com, you may write to the Claims Administrator at Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43420, Providence, RI 02940-3420, or you may call the Toll-Free Settlement Hotline, 1-844-448-7075, for more information. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU 6. Do I have lawyers in this case? The Court has appointed the law firms of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Hyde & Swigart, and Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. as Class Counsel to represent you and the other persons in the Settlement Class. You will not be personally charged by these lawyers. 7. How will Class Counsel be paid? Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of up to 30% of the $7,000,000 Settlement Fund to them for attorneys' fees, plus actual litigation expenses. Class Counsel also will ask the Court to approve payment of up to $5,000 to each of the Plaintiffs for their services as Class Representatives. The Court may award less than these amounts. THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS -- WHAT YOU GET 8. What does the settlement provide? Settlement Fund. Synchrony will pay the total amount of $7,000,000 into a fund (the "Settlement Fund"), which will cover: (1) cash payments to Settlement Class Members who submit timely and valid Claim Forms; (2) an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, in an amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund plus actual litigation expenses, as approved by the Court; (3) service awards to Plaintiffs, in an amount not to exceed $5,000 to each Plaintiff, as approved by the Court; (4) the costs of notice and administration of the Settlement; and (5) if there are any uncashed checks, a charitable contribution, approved by the Court. Cash Payments. All Settlement Class Members are eligible to submit a Claim Form and receive a cash payment. To submit a Claim Form, follow the procedures described under Question 11 below. No Portion of the Settlement Fund Will Return to Synchrony. Any money remaining in the Settlement Fund after paying all valid and timely claims to Settlement Class Members, attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, any service awards to Plaintiffs and the costs of notice and administration of the settlement will be paid either: (1) in a second distribution to Settlement Class Members who submitted valid and timely Claim Forms and whose initial payments were cashed; or (2) if there are not enough funds to justify a second distribution, the remaining funds will be donated to a cy pres recipient approved by the Court. No portion of the Settlement Fund will return to Synchrony. 9. How much will my payment be? Your share of the Settlement Fund will depend on the number of valid Claim Forms that Settlement Class Members submit. 10. What am I giving up to stay in the Settlement Class? Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will be part of the Settlement Class and will be bound by the release of claims in the settlement. This means that if the settlement is approved, you cannot rely on any Released Claim to sue or continue to sue, on your own or as part of any other lawsuit, Synchrony and/or any other Released Parties, as explained in the settlement agreement. It also means that all of the Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you. Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will agree to release Synchrony and any other Released Parties, as defined in the settlement agreement, from any and all claims that arise from the automated calls to your cellular telephone at issue in this action. In summary, the Release includes, without limitation, all claims that arise out of the use by Synchrony or any of its agents or affiliates, acting for or on their behalf, of an "automatic telephone dialing system" and/or an "artificial or prerecorded voice" to make "calls" to a cellular telephone (to the fullest extent that those terms are used, defined or interpreted by the TCPA, relevant regulatory or administrative promulgations and case law) to make collection calls to a cellular telephone number, by or on behalf of the Released Parties, including, but not limited to, claims under or for violation of the TCPA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder and relevant case law, and all claims for violation of any other state or federal statutory or common law that regulates, governs, prohibits or restricts the making, placing or initiating of calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice. If you have any questions about the Release or what it means, you can speak to Class Counsel, listed under Question 6, for free, or you can, at your own expense, talk to your own lawyer. The Release does not apply to persons potentially in the Settlement Class who timely exclude themselves. HOW TO OBTAIN A PAYMENT 11. How can I get a payment? To receive a payment, you must submit a Claim Form. You may get a Claim Form on the Settlement Website, www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com, or by calling the Toll-Free Settlement Hotline, 1-844-448-7075. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form completely and accurately, sign it and submit it. To be valid, the Claim Form must be completed fully and accurately, signed and submitted timely. A Claim Form may be submitted by mail to the Claims Administrator at: Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43420, Providence, RI 02940-3420, or via the Settlement Website at www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com If you are submitting your claim via the Settlement Website, it must be submitted no later than November 14, 2016. If you are mailing your Claim Form to the Claims Administrator, it must be postmarked by that date. WHEN WILL I RECEIVE MY SETTLEMENT PAYMENT? 12. When would I receive a settlement payment? The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on December 19, 2016 to decide whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, after that, there may be appeals. It is always uncertain whether these appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time, perhaps more than a year. Everyone who sends in a Claim Form will be informed of the progress of the settlement through information posted on the Settlement Website at www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com. Please be patient. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT 13. How do I get out of the settlement? If you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Synchrony or a Released Party, as defined in the settlement agreement, then you must take steps to get out of the Settlement Class. This is called excluding yourself from, or opting-out of, the Settlement Class. To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send an exclusion request to the Claims Administrator. To be valid, an exclusion request must: (i) be signed by the person in the Settlement Class who is requesting exclusion; (ii) include the full name and address of the person in the Settlement Class requesting exclusion; and (iii) include the following statement: "I/we request to be excluded from the settlement in the Abdeljalil action." No request for exclusion will be valid unless all of the information described above is included. No person in the Settlement Class, or any person acting on behalf of or in concert or participation with that person in the Settlement Class, may exclude any other person or any group of persons from the Settlement Class. To be valid, you must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than October 14, 2016 to the Claims Administrator at Abdeljalil v. GE Capital Retail Bank Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43420, Providence, RI 02940-3420. 14. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Synchrony for the same thing later? No. If you do not exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue (or continue to sue) Synchrony or any Released Parties for the claims that this settlement resolves. 15. If I exclude myself, can I get a benefit from this settlement? No. If you ask to be excluded, you will not be able to submit a Claim Form for a settlement payment and you cannot object to the settlement. OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT 16. How do I tell the Court that I do not think the settlement is fair? If you are in the Settlement Class, you can object to the settlement or any part of the settlement that you think the Court should reject, and the Court will consider your views. If you do not provide a written objection in the manner described below, you shall be deemed to have waived any objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the settlement or the award of any attorneys' fees and costs and/or service awards. To object, you must make your objection in writing, stating that you object to the settlement in Abdeljalil, et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank. To be considered by the Court, the written objection must: (a) attach documents establishing, or provide information sufficient to allow the Parties to confirm, that the objector is a Settlement Class Member, including providing the cellular telephone number called; (b) include a statement of such Settlement Class Member's specific objections; (c) state the grounds for objection, as well as identify any documents which the objector desires the Court to consider; and (d) if the Settlement Class Member is represented by an attorney, list all other cases in which the Class Member has filed an objection. To be considered, you must file your objections with the Court and mail your objections to the addresses below no later than October 14, 2016. For Plaintiffs: Kazerouni Law Group, APC Abbas Kazerounian 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 For Synchrony: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Julia B. Strickland, Esq. 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086 Even if you timely and properly object, to obtain a benefit from this settlement, you must submit a Claim Form. If you object but fail to submit a Claim Form, you will not receive any monetary award. 17. What is the difference between objecting and excluding yourself? Objecting is telling the Court that you do not like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Settlement Class. Excluding yourself means that you do not want to be part of the Settlement Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you. IF YOU DO NOTHING 18. What happens if I do nothing at all? If you do nothing, you will not receive any monetary award and you will give up your rights to sue Synchrony and/or any other Released Parties on a Released Claim. For information relating to what rights you are giving up, see Question 10. THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING 19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 2:30 p.m. on December 19, 2016 at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, Courtroom 13B. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. If there are valid objections that comply with the requirements in Question 16 above, the Court also will consider them and will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel and Plaintiffs. The Final Approval Hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the Settlement Website for updates. 20. Do I have to come to the hearing? No. Class Counsel will appear on behalf of the Settlement Class. But, you are welcome to come, or have your own lawyer appear, at your own expense. 21. May I speak at the hearing? You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, but only in connection with an objection that you have timely submitted to the Court according to the procedure set forth in Question 16 above. To speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must also file a document with the Court stating your intention to appear. For this document to be considered, it must include your name, address, telephone number and your signature. The document must be filed with the Court no later than October 14, 2016. You cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the settlement. GETTING MORE INFORMATION 22. How do I get more information? This Notice is only a summary of the proposed settlement. You can get a copy of the settlement agreement by visiting the Settlement Website, www.AbdeljalilTCPASettlement.com, or you can write to the address above or call the Toll-Free Settlement Hotline, 1-844-448-7075. You can also contact Class Counsel with any questions at: 1-800-400-6808 or email: abdeljalil@westcoastlitigation.com. DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT, THE CLERK OF THE COURT, SYNCHRONY OR SYNCHRONY'S COUNSEL ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Favors Dismissal of "Rephen" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nelson S. Roman of the Southern District of New York, denied plaintiff's motion to amend and granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case BRADLEY REPHEN, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION d/b/a ONSTAR and GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, No. 15-cv-5206 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.) Bradley Rephen entered into a lease agreement for a vehicle manufactured by General Motors Corporation (GM) d/b/a OnStar and General Motors LLC. Pursuant to the lease agreement, Rephen received a free, six-month trial of OnStar services which expired on April 27, 2015. In or about March 2015, Rephen received a letter from OnStar notifying him that it had reason to believe Rephen's vehicle had been sold or traded and therefore the OnStar services would be cancelled. Rephen called OnStar and informed a representative that the March correspondence was inaccurate and that Rephen had neither sold nor traded the car. The representative stated that she would correct OnStar's records. On April 10, 2015, Rephen received an electronic communication cancellation notice from OnStar, notifying Rephen that his OnStar services had been deactivated because his vehicle was traded or sold. On April 22, 2015, Rephen again received a second electronic communication from OnStar. The email informed Rephen that if he will not accept the OnStar User Terms and Privacy Statement immediately, or if he will decline, his OnStar trial and RemoteLink Key Fob Services will be cancelled and the OnStar hardware in his vehicle will be deactivated. Rephen brought an action against GM, alleging claims for violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 and breach of contract. Rephen then filed a motion to amend the amended class action complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant filed a cross-motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), to strike the class action allegations and for sanctions. Judge Roman denied plaintiff's motion to amend and granted defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Roman's opinion and order dated July 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/qw8brmfrom Leagle.com. Bradley Rephen, Plaintiff, represented by: Edward B. Geller, Esq. Edward B. Geller, P.C. 1053 Sam Mill River Road, Ste., LL1 Ardsley, NY 10502 Telephone: 914-473-6783 General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven Robert Kramer -- skramer@eckertseamans.com -- Kelly Robreno Koster -- kkoster@eckertseamans.com -- at Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott LLC GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action in Japan Over HPV Vaccines -------------------------------------------------------------- Zosia Chustecka, writing for Medscape, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed on July 27 in Japan against the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, which are given to protect against cervical cancer. The lawsuit has been filed against the Japanese government and the manufacturers of the HPV vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline, which markets Cervarix, and Merck & Co, which markets Gardasil). It has been filed by lawyers on behalf of 63 plaintiffs (aged 15 to 25 years) who allege that they have experienced adverse effects after receiving the vaccine and are demanding compensation of at least JPY15 million ($140,682) each. The plaintiffs say they experienced a wide range of health problems, including headaches, fatigue, and mobility impairment, according to a report in The Japan Times. The plaintiffs have filed suits in four district courts in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka. In addition to compensation, the plaintiffs are demanding that the state set up a nationwide network of specialists to help them with their symptoms, the newspaper reports. In addition, they want it to subsidize research for finding a cure and to support victims as they seek to continue their educations and search for jobs. "This lawsuit aims to bring the victims back to health and ensure a secure life for them, by clarifying the legal responsibility of the defendants," Masumi Minaguchi, a lawyer representing the women, told a news conference in Tokyo. "We want to prevent any recurrence of drug-induced illness." The lawyer also said that the number of plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit was likely to increase, as 180 families so far have asked for consultations. Vaccine Was Recommended, and Then Not The HPV vaccines were first launched in Japan in 2009, and vaccination programs were funded first by local and then the central government. In April 2013, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare recommended that girls between 12 and 16 years of age should receive the HPV vaccine and included it in the National Immunization Program (so it was given for free). However, the Ministry then withdrew that recommendation a few months later, in June 2013, after highly publicized reports of alleged health problems that appeared after vaccination, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News. The Japan Times newspaper notes that, according to the Ministry, side effects have been reported by 2945 women (0.09%) from among the 3.39 million women who had received the vaccines by the end of April 2013. A television report about the class action lawsuit on "NHK World" says that the plaintiffs argue that the government should not have recommended and subsidized the HPV vaccines before ensuring that they were safe. The TV report notes that the Ministry and GlaxoSmithKline have refused to comment on the lawsuit but that Merck & Co has said that "it will present evidence in court that will prove the claims are baseless." The TV report also notes that cervical cancer is responsible for 3000 deaths annually in Japan and that the incidence in young women is increasing, which is causing concern among experts. Japanese experts in obstetrics and gynecology have been petitioning for the HPV vaccine program to be reinstated in Japan, arguing that the current low rates of vaccination could lead in the future to highly preventable cervical and other HPV-related cancers. Speaking recently in a Lancet podcast, Ryo Konno, MD, from Jichi Medical University, Saitama Medical Center, Japan, emphasized that in 2013, the Ministry of Health did not clearly communicate whether there was a causal relationship between the vaccine and the adverse events. Health officials said that girls could be vaccinated if parents understood the risks and efficacy, but the HPV vaccines could not be actively promoted, he said. "Health officials were so confused," he said. "Consequently, coverage from the vaccine dropped from 70% to only 1%." Dr Konno has received honoraria from Roche Diagnostics and BD and is the director of the Executive Board of the Japanese Expert Board for the Eradication of Cervical Cancer, which has received unrestricted funding from Qiagen; Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and GlaxoSmithKline. GLOBUS MEDICAL: Silverstein Litigation Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Globus Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the Silverstein litigation. The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purports to represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February 26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief." "We believe the allegations to be unfounded, and intend to defend our rights vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual related to this litigation." H. TRADING: Faces "Fouissi" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- REDOUANE FOUISSI and other similarly situated individuals, v. H. TRADING CORP. d/b/a Steve Market 2 f/k/a Steve Market 2 Inc.; JALAI HAJYOUSEF; and OMAR HAJJE, Case 1:16-cv-23283-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act. H. TRADING CORP.'s business is categorized under Wholesale Art Goods. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com HAYRE-HARTER: "Tacza" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------- GUILLERMO VILCHEZ TACZA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HAYRE-HARTER RANCHES LLC; THOMAS HAYRE; MARY LELLEE HARTER; TERENCE HARTER; and MOUNTAIN PLAINS AGRICULTURAL SERVICE, the Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv- 62634-PAS (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2016), seeks to recover damages for Defendants' violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff worked as an irrigation worker but Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an open-range goatherder in order to pay him less than the required minimum wage rate for the irrigation work Plaintiff performed for Defendants between 2009 and 2015. Hayre Harter is a sheep and goat farm located in Sheffield, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Willett, Esq. Philip J. Moss, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 510 S. Congress Avenue, Suite 206 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 474 0007 ext. 107 Facsimile: (512) 474 0008 E-mail: cwillett@equaljusticecenter.org pmoss@equaljusticecenter.org - and - Dermot Lynch, Esq. Alex Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1535 High St., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (970) 329 1044 Facsimile: (303) 957 2289 E-mail: dermot@towardsjustice.org alex@towardsjustice.org HOMESTEAD FORD: Faces "Farinas" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynaldo Farinas, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Homestead Ford, Inc., a foreign for profit corporation, d/b/a "Armstrong Ford of Homestead"; William J. Armstrong, individually, Case 1:16-cv-23279-UU (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, August 1, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Homestead Ford, Inc. is in the Motor Vehicle Dealers industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Phone: 305-665-9211 Fax: 305-328-4842 E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com HOUSE OF WU: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Barendse" Class Suit Asserts ----------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH BARENDSE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOUSE OF WU, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00590-UA- MRM (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2016), is an action for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation for opposing unlawful payroll practices. The putative class of similarly situated employees consists of all other non-exempt employees working over 40 hours a week employed by the Defendant within the last three years. House of Wu operates a retail business in Ft. Myers, in Lee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 386-0995 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com ICM GROUP: Settles Illawara Customers' Loan Fee Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Kate McIlwain, writing for Illawara Mercury, reports that a Wollongong "payday" lender has agreed to stop handing out the high-interest, short-term loans, after a successful class action joined by more than 8000 Illawarra customers. The case, lodged by Legal Aid NSW against the operators of five Cash AFX stores, was led by a 33-year-old pensioner who had borrowed $400 for seven weeks to pay for repairs to his car. The man was then charged a "cheque-cashing fee" of $102, which was immediately taken from the loan proceeds by one of the companies involved in the case. Wollongong Legal Aid lawyer Matthew Turner said the class action argued Cash AFX was "breaching five different laws including the National Credit Code" by charging this fee. He argued the fee would have been in breach of the credit code as it would have been in excess of the 48 per cent interest cap which applies to regulated loans. The claim included over 8000 people who had obtained payday loans in similar circumstances to the lead plaintiff over the past five years. The defendants -- ICM Group Finance, ICM Group Pty Limited and the sole director of the companies Michael O'Shea -- initially rejected these claims but have now agreed to settle the case. In the terms of settlement, Mr. O'Shea agreed that his companies would not engage in any further payday lending and would not collect more than $40,000 in payments on outstanding loans. However the Cash AFX stores -- in Wollongong, Warrawong, Corrimal, Warilla and Dapto -- remain free to carry out other business activities. "We are pleased that instead of fighting a protracted court case, the companies and their director agreed to settle the matter and not to engage in any further payday lending," Mr. Turner said. "This is an excellent result for the people of the Illawarra. We believe credit provision should occur lawfully and be compliant with the regulations, so being able to stop this practice means a better outcome for people who want to borrow." He said payday loans were often given to vulnerable people who relied on Centrelink payments and needed money for unexpected expenses urgently. "It is important that lenders of last resort obey the rules which limit how much they can charge for such loans, and it is essential that laws regulating payday lending are enforced to protect vulnerable borrowers," Mr. Turner said. INDIANA: DOT Faces Class Action Over Chip & Seal Process -------------------------------------------------------- Keith Rhoades, writing for Reporter-Times, reports that four people have been reimbursed by the Indiana Department of Transportation for damage to their vehicles caused by the chip and seal process performed on Ind. 67 in the fall of 2014. If Eric Rogers has his way, all of the nearly 370 people who filed tort claims will have a chance to collect. Mr. Rogers' attorney filed a lawsuit on July 22 in Morgan County Superior Court I asking to recover damages and requesting that the suit be deemed class action. Chip and seal is a process performed by INDOT in which a layer of tar is applied to fill cracks in a road. A layer of stone is put on top of the tar, which is followed by a sealer. INDOT officials say the process extends the life of the road before it needs completely replaced. Loose gravel, though, was thrown up as cars and trucks passed through the project, causing damage to vehicles, Ryan Dillon, of the Dillon Legal Group, wrote in the lawsuit he filed for Rogers. According to information provided by INDOT, 366 people filed tort claims against the state over damage to their vehicles. They allege the loose stone on the pavement caused their damage. Dillon said the state only paid four claims and rejected the others. One of those who was rejected, Steve Litz of Monrovia, sued the state and won. On May 20, Morgan County Magistrate Court Judge Sara Dungan ruled in Mr. Litz' favor and against the state for $537.39 plus court costs. Judge Dungan said the state has six months to pay Mr. Litz, who said he is optimistic about getting his money back. "It's rewarding to have a judge who understands that the state simply can't flex its muscle and automatically win," Mr. Litz said. "I think this is a good example of why citizens shouldn't just sit back and let the state take advantage of them." In his lawsuit, Mr. Dillon is asking Judge Pete Foley to make the case a class action lawsuit and allow others to file for damages. Only those who initially filed tort claims and were denied would be allowed to join a class action lawsuit. Tort claims had to have been filed within 270 days of the initial damage. At this time, no hearing date has been scheduled. INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Under FLSA, Min. Wage Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO DOUGLAS and FAUSTINO LICEAGA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL SERVICES LLC, ANTHONY BARTOLOMEO, and CHEZ DEGENNARO, jointly and severally, Case 1:16-cv-06096 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minimum Wage Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL SERVICES LLC -- http://www.innovativeelectricalservices.net/-- provides electrical services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com JGWPT HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in "Sanders" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Sara L. Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss in the case VALERIO SANDERS, JANEKA HICKS, KENNETH JENNINGS, and KEVIN RINCK, Plaintiffs, v. JGWPT HOLDINGS, INC., JGWPT HOLDINGS, LLC, J.G. WENTWORTH LLC, PEACHHI, LLC, PEACH HOLDINGS, INC., PEACHTREE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING LLC, SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC d/b/a PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING, BRIAN P. MACK, and THE MACK LAW GROUP, P.C., Defendants, No. 14 C 9188 (N.D. Ill.) Plaintiffs Valerio Sanders, Janeka Hicks, Kenneth Jennings, and Kevin Rinck all were beneficiaries of periodic annuity payments paid to them as part of structured settlement contracts who transferred their rights to annuity payments in exchange for an upfront lump sum from defendants JGWPT Holdings, Inc., JGWPT Holdings, LLC, J.G. Wentworth, LLC, PeachHI, LLC, Peach Holdings, Inc., Peachtree Financial Solutions, LLC, or Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC or defendant Settlement Funding, LLC d/b/a Peachtree Settlement Funding. Defendants are entities engaged in the business of purchasing structured settlement annuity payments, as well as their attorneys. The exchange took place by way of factoring transactions approved by Illinois courts after defendants Brian P. Mack and The Mack Law Group, P.C. filed petitions for court orders approving the transactions. Plaintiffs allege that defendants misled them and other unsuspecting individuals into selling their annuity payments for less than they were worth, despite an anti-assignment clause in their structured settlement contracts, and wrongly obtained orders approving the transactions under the provisions of the Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act. In their second amended complaint, plaintiffs brought federal claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d), and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy, joint enterprise, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The Mack defendants and JGWPT defendants moved to dismiss all claims in the second amended complaint, and Settlement Funding, LLC moves to dismiss the claims of Janeka Hicks. Judge Sara L. Ellis granted in part and denied in part the Mack defendants' motion to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part the JGWPT Defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted in part and denied in part Settlement Funding's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Ellis's opinion and order dated July 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/PFI2mDfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- Randall Seth Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- at Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, L.L.C.; Ryan James Mahoney and David Cates at Cates Mahoney, LLC; Jeffrey M. Goldberg -- at Jeffrey M. Goldberg & Associates; Brad Lee Badgley -- at Brad L. Badgley, P.C. JGWPT Holdings, Inc., JGWPT Holdings, LLC, J.G. Wentworth, LLC, Peachhi, LLC, Peach Holdings, Inc., Peachtree Financial Solutions, LLC, Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC, Settlement Funding LLC, Defendants, represented by Timothy Charles Sansone -- tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com -- A. Courtney Cox -- ccox@sandbergphoenix.com -- Anthony L. Martin -- amartin@sandbergphoenix.com -- at Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.C.; Abraham Judson Souza -- asouza@reedsmith.com -- Diane Green- Kelly -- dgreenkelly@reedsmith.com -- Margaret Grignon -- Maria Teresa Pellegrini -- mpellegrini@reedsmith.com -- Mark S. Melodia -- mmelodia@reedsmith.com -- & Michael David Richman -- mdrichman@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP Mack Law Group, PC and Brian P. Mack, Defendants, represented by John Francis Grady -- jgrady@gradybell.com -- Lauren F. Catlin -- lcatlin@gradybell.com -- at Grady Bell LLP J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC, Defendant, represented by Abraham Judson Souza -- asouza@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP JOJOLIA INC: "Apilado" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR APILADO, the Plaintiff, v. EMILNA A VALES, JOJOLIA INC., LEONARDO DANAO, JR. and DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. RG16825337 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's alleged willful and fraudulent violations of the Labor Code by failing to: 1) pay proper overtime wages; 2) pay minimum wage; 3) record, maintain and provide true and accurate employee time and pay records, 4) provide true and proper itemized wage statements, 5) report to government agencies all payments made to employees, 6) pay employment taxes on such payment, and 7) secure and maintain workers' compensation insurance. Jojolia is in the bakery and restaurant business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan A. Villanueva, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALLAN A VILLANUEVA 1001 Bayhill Drive, Suite 200 San Bruno, CA 94066 Telephone (650) 616 4144 Facsimile (650) 479 3086 JT MEAT: Faces "Garcia" Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORIS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JT MEAT & GROCERY CORP., d/b/a FINE FARE SUPERMARKETS, RETAIL GROCERS GROUP, INC. and KEVIN TAVERA, Case 1:16-cv-06103 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, and related damages for alleged unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. JT Meat and Grocery Corp. operates a supermarket at Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 11 Broadway, Suite 960 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 344-9022 Fax: (212) 344-0301 JUI LI: Class Cert. Granted in Automotive Sheet Metal Parts Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Wright, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Judge Lynn Adelman has granted class certification in an aftermarket automotive sheet metal parts class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In Fond du Lac Bumper Exchange v. Jui Li Enterprise et al, the defendants are accused of contriving to fix the cost of the automotive sheet metal parts -- replacement parts for cars not contrived by the original manufacturers and distributed through auto manufacturers' service channels -- and violating the Sherman Act, an act that guards the public from monopolies. After submitting the commonality and predominance requirements for class certification concerning a Sherman Act claim, the plaintiffs' arguments were accepted. Allegations include that the defendants had some sort of conspiracy in motion, there were effects of the conspiracy evident in the market and that those in the proposed class were harmed. The commonality requirement refers to common legal matters and facts among the class members and the predominance condition requires there be common questions to all class members, all of which must be fulfilled by the same evidence and approach during damages calculations. The court found these requirements satisfied through the regression analysis of the plaintiffs' expert, a common analysis type for class action lawsuits. "As a general matter, plaintiffs and defendants each submit their own expert analysis to argue for or against certifying a class. In this case, plaintiffs presented the court with regression analysis," Deirdre McEvoy -- dmcevoy@pbwt.com -- counsel in Patterson Belknap's litigation department, told Legal Newsline in an email interview. "That analysis showed what the market would have been like in the absence of anti-competitive conduct by defendants, and compared that hypothetical market to the actual market, which they claim was affected by defendants' conspiracy. "Many plaintiffs seeking to certify a class offer do some kind of regression analysis, but expert analysis varies." In the analysis, the plaintiffs' expert provided Judge Adelman with a pricing structure analysis to show that the prices of different automotive products would have actually been lower had the defendant's restrictions on the market had not been in place. The defendants' expert's regression analysis also showed the but-for price -- the estimated price the class members would have paid if the defendant's anti-competitive conduct was not in place -- of the automotive parts. The class is composed of the direct purchasers of the aftermarket automotive parts. "The court projected that the class would be composed of 400-500 class members," Mr. McEvoy said. "Defendants could be liable for treble damages -- that is, three times the amount of damages they are found liable for." In similar cases concerning antitrust lawsuits and auto parts and installation, defendants have had to pay anywhere from $2 million to $24 million in criminal fines. KATE SPADE: Judge Denied Defendant's Bid to Dismiss Suit -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California, denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case GAYLIA PICKLES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KATE SPADE AND COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05329-VC (N.D. Cal.) Laura Marks, Gaylia Pickles, and Donna Vandiver have sued Kate Spade and Company, alleging Kate Spade has violated California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq., California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500 et seq., California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq., and Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 17.46et seq. Plaintiffs allege that Kate Spade manufactures inferior quality goods for sale at its outlet stores, while giving shoppers the false impression that those items were manufactured for and previously sold at regular Kate Spade boutiques at much higher prices, such that shoppers wrongly believe they are getting boutique-quality goods for a bargain. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of California consumers and a class of Texas consumers. Kate Spade has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. Judge Chhabria denied defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Chhabria order dated July 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/NnU4DBfrom Leagle.com. Gaylia Pickles, Plaintiff, represented by David Samuel Markun -- dmarkun@mzclaw.com -- Edward Scott Zusman -- ezusman@mzclaw.com -- Kevin K. Eng -- keng@mzclaw.com -- Mark A. Ozzello -- mozzello@mzclaw.com -- Ari Yale Basser -- abasser@mzclaw.com -- at MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE AND COMPTON, LLP Donna Vandiver and Laura Marks, Plaintiffs, represented by Ari Yale Basser -- abasser@mzclaw.com -- at MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE AND COMPTON, LLP; Michelle Eddington; Che Dawn Williamson -- at Williamson Law Firm Kate Spade and Company, Defendant, represented by P. Craig Cardon -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- Dylan John Price -- dprice@sheppardmullin.com -- Jay Thomas Ramsey -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP KBS FLOORING: "Camargo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- Gilbert Camargo, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. KBS Flooring LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-1348 (M.D. Fla., July 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a flooring business in St. Cloud, Osceola County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a carpet installer. Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main No.: 813-224-0431 Direct No.: 813-379-2565 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com jriley@wfclaw.com KRAFT FOODS: Court Dismisses CEA Claims on Wash Trading Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, HARRY PLOSS, as Trustee for the HARRY PLOSS TRUST DTD 8/16/1993, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC. and MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendants, Civil No. 15 C 2937 (N.D. Ill), District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Kraft's motion to dismiss as to the claims under Section 9(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act involving the wash trading scheme, dismissing those claims without prejudice; and denied in part as to the CEA, Sherman Act, and unjust enrichment claims related to the long wheat futures scheme. Harry Ploss brings suit on behalf of himself and a proposed class, alleging that Kraft Food Group, Inc. and Mondelez Global LLC manipulated the market by maintaining a large position of wheat futures in an attempt to influence prices, and not for any legitimate need for wheat. Ploss also alleges that Kraft manipulated the market by engaging in unlawful wash trades and reporting them to the public as legitimate transactions, in order to create an impression of greater market activity. Ploss brings seven total counts: (1) manipulation under Section 9(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) for the long wheat futures scheme; (2) manipulation under Section 6(c)(1) of the CEA for the long wheat futures scheme; (3) principal-agent liability under Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the CEA for the long wheat futures scheme; (4) manipulation under Section 9(a)(2) of the CEA for the wash trading scheme; (5) manipulation under Section 6(c)(1) of CEA for the wash trading scheme; (6) violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act; and (7) unjust enrichment. Kraft moves to dismiss the entire Complaint, arguing that Ploss has not stated any viable claim. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/1RGor2 from Leagle.com, Judge Chang reversed the judgment because the class notice failed in its fundamental purpose -- to apprise class members of the terms of the proposed settlement. The erroneous notice injected a fatal flaw into the entire settlement process and undermines the court's analysis of the settlement's fairness. Harry Ploss is represented by Christopher M. McGrath, Esq. -- CMcGrath@lshllp.com -- Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq. -- BJaccarino@lshllp.com -- Christopher Lovell, Esq. -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- and Gary S. Jacobson, Esq. -- GSJacobson@lshllp.com -- LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN & JACOBSON, LLP - - Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. -- lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- and Marvin Alan Miller, Esq. -- mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- MILLER LAW LLC Robert Wallace, et al. are represented by W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. -- wjbruckner@locklaw.com -- Heidi M. Silton, Esq. -- hmsilton@locklaw.com -- and Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. -- kmbaxter- kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAEUN PLLP -- Donald Lewis Sawyer, Esq. -- dsawyer@fklmlaw.com -- Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. -- rwozniak@fklmlaw.com -- and Steven A. Kanner, Esq. -- skanner@fklmlaw.com -- FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC -- and Christopher Lovell, Esq. -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN, LLP Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is represented by Dean Nicholas Panos, Esq. -- dpanos@jenner.com -- J. Kevin McCall, Esq. -- jmccall@jenner.com -- Nicole Amie Allen, Esq. -- nallen@jenner.com -- and Thomas Edward Quinn, Esq. -- TQuinn@Jenner.com -- JENNER & BLOCK LLP Service List, is represented by Christian Levis, Esq. -- clevis@lowey.com -- Raymond P Girnys, Esq. -- rgirnys@lowey.com -- Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. -- ghorn@lowey.com -- Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. -- pstphillip@lowey.com -- and Vincent Briganti, Esq. -- vbriganti@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. -- Anthony F. Fata, Esq. -- afata@caffertyclobes.com -- and Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Esq. -- jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP -- Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. -- bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- and Susan Rogers Schwaiger, Esq. -- sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. -- Donald Lewis Sawyer, Esq. -- dsawyer@fklmlaw.com -- Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. -- rwozniak@fklmlaw.com -- and Steven A. Kanner, Esq. -- skanner@fklmlaw.com -- FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC -- Zachary Jayson Ziliak, Esq. -- Zachary@ziliak.com -- ZILIAK LAW, LLC LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Nov. 17 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement of the securities class action lawsuit is subject to further consideration at the settlement hearing scheduled to be held on November 17, 2016 and to several contingencies including final court approval. On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its founder, former Chief Executive Officer and President, former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer (collectively, the "Kiken Defendants"). On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and President and its former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants"). On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities Class Action Litigation"). The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to their compliance with the Lacey Act, the chemical content of certain of their wood products, and their supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint but, on December 21, 2015, the court denied this motion. On April 27, 2016, the Defendants entered into an agreement in principle, a Memorandum of Understanding ("Securities Class Action MOU"), with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action. On June 15, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive settlement agreement (the "Securities Class Action Stipulation") and, on July 7, 2016, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval for the Securities Class Action Stipulation. The terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation were consistent with those of the Securities Class Action MOU. Under the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the Company, through its insurers, will contribute $26,000 to a settlement fund that will be used to compensate individuals who purchased the Company's shares during the period from February 22, 2012 to February 27, 2015. In addition, under the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the Company will issue 1 million shares of its common stock to the settlement fund with a value of approximately $15,420 based on the $15.42 closing price of the Company's common stock on June 30, 2016. The Company has classified the loss contingency of $41,420 as accrued securities class action and the expected insurance proceeds of $26,000 as insurance receivable on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. The amount of loss associated with the issuance of shares of common stock as a part of the settlement will be determined based on the trading value of the shares on the date of issuance, which could increase the recognized loss if the trading value increases or result in a gain if the trading value decreases. The Company will record the fair value of the expected number of shares to be issued in its condensed consolidated balance sheet based on the closing price of its common stock as of the reporting date until the liability is settled. The Company recorded a benefit of $600 within selling, general and administrative expense during the second quarter of 2016 to reflect the decrease in the closing price of the Company's common stock between April 27, 2016, the initial recording of the liability, and June 30, 2016. The settlement is subject to further consideration at the settlement hearing scheduled to be held on November 17, 2016 and to several contingencies including final court approval. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. The ultimate resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and results of operations. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Product Liability Case in Expert Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that fact discovery has closed and expert discovery is now proceeding in the litigation relating to products liability. Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from the Company's flooring products (collectively, the "Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which although not identical are generally similar, including negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act violations, state unfair competition act violations, state deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and various damages, including restitution, actual, compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class actions. Plaintiffs had not quantified damages sought from the Company in these class actions. On June 12, 2015, United States Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring and consolidating ten of the related federal class actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). In a series of subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company continues to seek to have any newly filed cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court and ultimately, the Company expects all federal class actions involving formaldehyde allegations, including any newly filed cases, to be transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation. Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its flooring products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied warranty under California law. Thereafter, on September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the First Amended Representative Class Action Complaint ("FARC") in which they added implied warranty claims under New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law, as well as a federal warranty claim. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The Virginia Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion. The Company also filed a motion to strike nationwide class allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not yet ruled. The Company also filed a motion to strike all personal injury claims made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed and the Virginia Court has ordered that no Chinese formaldehyde class action pending in this lawsuit will seek damages for personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order does not affect any claims for personal injury brought solely on an individual basis. Fact discovery has closed and expert discovery is now proceeding in this matter. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Steele" Action in Ontario ------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment, (v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (i) compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to the Company's breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Suit Over Abrasion Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend litigation relating to abrasion claims. On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and two amended complaints were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abrasion Plaintiffs") sought to certify a national class composed of "All Persons in the United States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand laminate flooring products from Defendant for personal use in their homes," or, in the alternative, 32 statewide classes from California, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Louisiana. The SAC alleges violations of each of these states' consumer protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment. The Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in the SAC but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, sought an order certifying the action as a class action, an order adopting the Abrasion Plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an order appointing their counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, restitution of all monies it received from the Abrasion Plaintiffs and class members, damages (actual, compensatory, and consequential) and punitive damages. The Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint and the Company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The court decided that it would decide the motion only as to the California plaintiffs, but ordered all the non-California plaintiffs dropped from the action. The non-California plaintiffs have 60 days to re- file separate complaints in the Central District of California, which will then be transferred to the district court located in the place of residence of each non-California plaintiff whose claim is refiled. The Company disputes the Abrasion Plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the litigation by Dana Gold. On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that the Company sells is defective. On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint that added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, "Gold Plaintiffs"). The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. After holding a hearing and taking the motion under submission, the court dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed certain omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, and then a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016. In the Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that the Company has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class of individuals in the United States who purchased the Bamboo Product, as well as seven state subclasses of individuals who are residents of California, New York, Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo Product for personal, family, or household use. Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that the Company's actions violate the law and that the Company is financially responsible for notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of its profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members. The Company filed its answer to the Third Amended Complaint on February 3, 2016, and discovery in the matter is now proceeding. The Company disputes the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Ross" Litigation --------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the litigation by Joseph and Linda Ross. On or about February 23, 2016, Joseph Ross and Linda Ross (collectively, "Ross") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Second Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, County of Washoe. Ross seeks the certification of a class of individuals in the State of Nevada who purchased certain hardwood flooring products produced in China (the "Ross Products"). Ross alleges that the Ross Products are defective due to the Ross Products being contaminated with certain wood-boring insects. In particular, Ross's allegations include (i) breach of warranty, (ii) negligence, (iii) strict liability, (iv) negligent misrepresentation, (v) willful misconduct, and (vi) unjust enrichment. In the complaint, Ross seeks (i) general and special damages according to proof in excess of $50,000, (ii) attorneys' fees and costs according to proof, (iii) prejudgment and post- judgment interest on all sums awarded, according to proof at the maximum legal rate, (iv) costs of the lawsuit incurred, (v) restitution as authorized by law, (vi) punitive damages as authorized by law, and (vii) specific performance under the Company's express warranties. The Company disputes Ross's claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. MARYLAND: Court Approves Settlement in Detainees' Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland approved the Settlement Agreement and the Amendment, and granted requested attorneys' fees in the case captioned, JEROME DUVALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor of Maryland, et al., Defendants, Case No. ELH-94-2541 (D. Md.). Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for approval of settlement agreement as amended filed on June 21, 2016, which also includes an uncontested request for attorneys' fees submitted by plaintiffs' lawyers as part of the proposed Agreement. The motion pertains to a long-running class action initiated by detainees at the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC), challenging conditions of confinement. The Amendment was necessitated by the closure in September 2015 of the Men's Detention Center, which was previously part of BCDC, and the anticipated closure in 2016 and/or 2017 of the Women's Detention Center, the Annex, and the Wyatt Building. Therefore, the parties have amended the Agreement so as to extend the coverage of most of the provisions in the Settlement Agreement to pretrial detainees at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (BCBIC). The plaintiffs consist of "that class of persons who are now or who will in the future be confined to the Baltimore City Detention Center." The defendants "are the persons holding the following Maryland state offices: Governor, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Commissioner of Pretrial Detention and Services, Commissioner of Corrections, and the Warden of the Detention Center." In her Memorandum Opinion dated June 28, 2016 available at https://is.gd/0Q0lRW from Leagle.com, Judge Hollander concluded that the Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3626(a)(1)(A), in that it is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal rights of the plaintiffs. The Court approved the requested attorneys' fees in the amount of $450,000 finding it satisfactory and reasonable under the lodestar method and the Johnson factors. Jerome Duvall, et al. are represented by David Cyrus Fathi, Esq. - - dfathi@npp-aclu.org -- and Gabriel Baron Eber, Esq. -- geber@npp-aclu.org -- ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT They are also represented by: Debra Lynn Gardner, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER 1 North Charles Street, Suite 200 Baltimore, MD 21201 Tel: (410) 625-9409 -- and -- Elizabeth Rose Alexander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELIZABETH ALEXANDER 1416 Holly Street Northwest Washington, DC 20012 Tel: (202) 291-3774 Thomas Perkins, et al. are represented by: Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Esq. Laura Mullally, Esq. MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL St. Paul Plaza, 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 576-6300 Brenda M. Shell is represented by: Matthew John Fader, Esq. Stuart M. Nathan, Esq. Laura Mullally, Esq. Meghan Kathleen Casey, Esq. MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL St. Paul Plaza, 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 576-6300 Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr. is represented by: Stuart M. Nathan, Esq. Laura Mullally, Esq. Matthew John Fader, Esq. Meghan Kathleen Casey, Esq. William F. Brockman, Esq. MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL St. Paul Plaza, 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 576-6300 MASSAGE ENVY: Hardwick Appeals Ruling in "Crawford" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Objector-Appellant Clifford L. Hardwick filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Robert Crawford, II, et al. v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-00153-DMS-BGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. The appellate case is captioned as Robert Crawford, II, et al. v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 16-56118, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case was initiated in 2012 by plaintiffs Gail Hahn, Chaille Duncan and Alexis Hernandez against Massage Envy. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Company wrongly would not honor monthly 50-minute massages that customers did not use before they cancelled their membership. Former members of Massage Envy would receive a six-month reinstatement of approximately 75 percent of the unused massages. Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT P. CRAWFORD, II, as Personal Representative to the Estate of Gail Hahn; CHAILLE DUNCAN; and ALEXIS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated California residents, are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com - and - William Richard Restis, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 501 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: wrr@classactionlaw.com Objector-Appellant CLIFFORD L. HARDWICK is represented by: Jonathan Edward Fortman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC 250 Saint Catherine Street Florissant, MO 63031 Telephone: (314) 522-2312 Facsimile: (314) 524-1519 E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com - and - John C. Kress, Esq. THE KRESS LAW FIRM, LLC 4247 South Grand Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63111 Telephone: (314) 631-3883 E-mail: jckress@thekresslawfirm.com - and - Steve A. Miller, Esq. STEVE A. MILLER, P.C. 1625 Larimer Street, Suite 2905 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-9933 E-mail: sampc01@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee, MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is represented by: Cynthia Ricketts, Esq. SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1230 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 385-3370 E-mail: cricketts@srclaw.com - and - Luanne Sacks, Esq. SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP 177 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 549-0580 Facsimile: (415) 549-0640 E-mail: lsacks@srclaw.com - and - Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7656 Facsimile: (213) 229-6656 E-mail: kscolnick@gibsondunn.com - and - Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com MERCK & CO: 400+ Women Join Equal Pay Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Thepharmaletter reports that more than 400 women have come forward over the past month to join a class action lawsuit against US pharma giant Merck & Co, lawyers have revealed. It brings the total number of female employees claiming gender discrimination to 405. As well as challenging alleged unfair pay decisions, the women claim Merck systematically discriminates against female sales representatives, and pregnant women in particular, in promotions and other terms and conditions of employment. David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- chairman of Sanford Heisler LLP and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said: "The message sent by these women is clear. Many women across the country believe that they suffered pay discrimination while working at Merck. What started out as one woman against a corporation has now grown to more than 400." The case, Smith vs Merck & Co, has gathered pace from a single lawsuit alleging discrimination, which was filed by Kelli Smith in 2013. Ms Smith, employed as a Merck sales representative in Toms River since 2004, claims she was demoted, received lower performance evaluations and was subject to a hostile work environment after returning from maternity leave in 2010. In April this year, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered the two law firms bringing the lawsuit, to notify 3,183 female sales representatives across the country be given notice of their opportunity to join the $250 million Equal Pay Act lawsuit against Merck. There are still three weeks left for current and former female employees to join this class action. But in a statement, Merck said the company would continue to vigorously defend itself and remained fully committed to providing equal employment argued that the case would ultimately not proceed because it "lacks merit". "This is a procedural step that is typical in the early stages of lawsuits of this kind," it said, "and it does not mean any employees have been treated unfairly. Merck has a strong anti- discrimination policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of characteristics, such as gender, pregnancy, race, age, disability and sexual orientation." The statement added that the company provides multiple avenues for employees to raise concerns and to ensure that those concerns are addressed. MIDLAND CREDIT: Settles TCPA Class Action, Aug. 26 Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM.com, reports that according to papers filed on July 22 in California federal court, Encore Capital Group, Inc. subsidiary Midland Credit Management Inc. (Midland), and several related companies (collectively, the Defendants) have agreed to a settlement in multi-district Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation accusing the Defendants of violating the TCPA when trying to reach debtors. The litigation alleged that Defendants violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to call cell phones without the prior express consent of the call recipients. The case, In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, (United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 11-md-2286-MMA) arose out of 3 separate TCPA lawsuits filed in 2010 and 2011. On October 11, 2011, the separate actions were transferred to the Southern District of California Court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Summary of Settlement Class Counsel submits to the court that the settlement has a value of at least $20,498,608.00. The Settlement provides the following benefit to the Class to be paid by Defendants: $13,000,000 Credit Component, with pro rata credits to be credited to the Approved Claimants' accounts held by Defendants. $2,000,000 Cash Component, with pro rata cash payments to be paid to the Approved Claimants that do not have existing accounts with Defendants. All costs of Notice and Claims Administration presently estimated to be between $3,098,608 and $3,352,407. Attorneys' fees and costs of litigation to be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel, subject to Court approval, in the amount of $2,400,000. A total of $7,500 in incentive payments is also sought for the three Class Representatives, at $2,500 each. That amount will be paid from the Cash Component of the Settlement Fund. The Class definition as approved in the Preliminary Approval Order is as follows: All persons in the United States who were called on a cellular telephone by Defendants or their subsidiaries, affiliates or related companies (other than calls made by Asset Acceptance LLC, Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. or Propel Financial Services) using a dialer or by prerecorded voice message without prior express consent during the period from November 2, 2006 through August 31, 2014, inclusive. (Editor's note: Asset Acceptance LLC, Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. or Propel Financial Services are all entities that have been acquired by ECPG.) Postcard notices were mailed out originally to 6,266,704 Class members for whom there were names and addresses in Defendants' records. After returns and re-mails, there were 6,034,167 persons that are believed to have received the notice postcards, presumably about 96% of those Class members with names and addresses in Defendants' records. In accordance with a preliminary approval order from the court the Claims Administrator put in place a simple, easily followed claims procedure agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement that permitted the Class Member to easily file a claim by calling a toll-free 800 telephone number, or file online, without the necessity of mailing a claim form. The intent was to make submitting a claim as easy as possible to encourage the filing of claims. 329,755 class members filed claims. Each of the 329,755 claimants will receive approximately $23.49 in cash or approximately $58.84 in the form of a credit against what they owe Defendants. A hearing will be held on August 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM to seek final approval of the settlement. insideARM Perspective July has been a busy month for significant TCPA settlements; this is the fourth large settlement. MODESTO CITY, CA: Faces "Beidleman" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CHARLES BEIDLEMAN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. CITY OF MODESTO, Case No. 1:16-at-00595 (E.D. Cal., July 28, 2016), is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees. Mr. Beidleman's action arises from the Defendant's failure to include all statutorily required forms of compensation in the "regular rate" used to calculate his overtime compensation. The City of Modesto is a political subdivision of the state of California and employed the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, APC 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com istevens@mastagni.com atate@mastagni.com MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Accused by "Beets" Suit of Violating TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ CARRIE BEETS, on Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly Situated v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-05642-AB-KS (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's conduct in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff and class members on their telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Molina Healthcare, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Long Beach, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com apersinger@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Parties in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------- Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are now in discovery. The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in its investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and costs and fees." "In December 2015, the court denied Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods Group's motion to dismiss the CFTC's claims of market manipulation and attempted manipulation, and the parties are now in discovery. "Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified relief. "In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In June 2016, the court denied Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods Group's motion to dismiss, and the parties are now in discovery. "It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the CFTC action." MOTION PICTURE: Faces Class Action Over "Tobacco Imagery" Film -------------------------------------------------------------- Alice B. Lloyd, writing for The Weekly Standard, reports that a class action lawsuit against the Motion Picture Association of America -- claiming "tobacco imagery" in Hollywood movies brainwashes our youth -- would have every film with as much as puff receive an R rating. Among recent films targeting tender young minds with alluring swirls of smoke, the suit cites 2015 Bond flick Spectre, in which a skeleton puffs a cigar, and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. They'd slap an R rating on Gandalf the Grey's baroque smoke rings? Not quite Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones sexily smoking in outer space. Lawyers for the MPAA, who created the ratings system in the first place to avoid legal snarls much like this one, argue a First Amendment defense, while the complaint claims that Hollywood studios have known since 2003 that scenes of smoking in movies with ratings G, PG or PG-13 will lead kids to light up. Studies from the early 2000s tie onscreen tobacco imagery to smoking among teen moviegoers whose parents don't smoke. The anti-smoking lobby's favorites seem to show that the subjects most likely to take up smoking in their mid-teens saw a lot of smoky movies in their preteen years (instead of spending that time at the library, the country club, or the football field, say) and yet have nice, non-smoking moms and dads. These same teens, one would assume, bummed around town with their no-good friends and ran out of good ideas -- Gandalf's pipe notwithstanding. Even with all of cinematic history a click away, the case seems to casts today's youth as terminal wimps who'll lose interest in anything illicit enough to merit an R rating -- sex, violence, foul language . . . and now cigarettes. Class action plaintiffs and their lawyers might find that if their suit succeeds, it will have the opposite effect. NEW MEXICO: 10th Cir. Affirms Ruling on E-Filing Fee Structure -------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Gregory A. Phillips of the Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Plaintiffs' right-to-counsel, access-to-the-courts, and equal-protection claims in the case captioned, STEPHEN R. WHITTINGTON; WHITTCO, INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHIEF JUSTICE PETRA JIMENEZ MAES; JUSTICE EDWARD L. CHAVEZ; JUSTICE CHARLES W. DANIELS; JUSTICE BARBARA J. VIGIL; JUSTICE RICHARD C. BOSSON, in their Official Capacities as Members of the NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT; and ARTHUR W. PEPIN, in his Official Capacity as Director of the NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-2122 (10th Cir.). The class-action plaintiffs, Stephen R. Whittington and Whittco, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively, Plaintiffs), challenge the constitutionality of New Mexico's electronic filing (e-filing) fee structure. New Mexico's e-filing fee structure requires civil litigants who are represented by attorneys to pay mandatory e-filing fees each time they electronically file a document in district court. In the district court, Plaintiffs asserted that the e-filing fee structure suffers three constitutional infirmities: (1) it impermissibly burdens their First Amendment right to retain counsel; (2) it violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts; and (3) it violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal-protection. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' federal claims. On appeal, Plaintiffs assert the same arguments against dismissal as they made to the district court: (1) the e-filing fee is an impermissible tax on their right to retain counsel; (2) the e-filing fee is a tax that unconstitutionally burdens their right to access the courts; and (3) the classifications determining which litigants pay the fee are not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In his Order and Judgment dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/U9I7T8 from Leagle.com, Judge Phillips found that (1)Plaintiffs' equal-protection claim fails because Plaintiffs are not similarly situated to pro se parties who do not use the e- filing system; (2) the district court appropriately dismissed Plaintiffs' access-to-the-courts claim because the e-filing fees are necessary to reimburse New Mexico for the cost and maintenance of the e-filing system; and (3) that Plaintiffs have standing because Plaintiffs' challenge meets the three constitutional standing requirements. NOVA SCOTIA: Ex-Residents Still Waiting for Settlement Payouts -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Ritchie, writing for CTV News Atlantic, reports that the case has been settled for two years, but former residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children haven't seen any payout from their class-action lawsuit. The settlement was reached back in June of 2014. The province will be responsible for $29 million, and another $5 million from the home. The payouts are based on assessments of harm. But former resident Stacey Beals says having to retell his story for the class-action lawsuit made him feel like a victim all over again. "I stand disillusioned with this whole process," said Mr. Beals. "I feel like this whole process has done more harm to me than was actually done to me." Mr. Beals says his settlement was originally estimated at $100,000, but now he's not sure how much he will get. "I don't know how many people that are actually involved in the claim," he said. Lawyer Ray Wagner led the lawsuit, working on the case for more than a decade. He says when the class action was settled, there were about 120 plaintiffs. "There are approximately 330 claimants that actually came forward in the claims period," said Mr. Wagner. Mr. Wagner says the payouts will be less than estimated and there's only so much to go around. Mr. Beals says it's reopened old wounds. He doesn't feel justice has been done and he wishes he never got involved. "Take it from me, do your homework read up on it. Find out, what does a class action entail," he said. But other former residents say they're happy to get this final acknowledgement of the harm that was done. "I've been hearing from a lot of people. We're being very thankful because these are pennies from heaven, because we never thought we'd even get the apology let alone be compensated financially," said former resident Tony Smith. Mr. Smith says he hopes the restorative inquiry will provide more closure for former residents. OCEAN DETAILING: "Charles" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- George Charles, Robinson T. Mertil and Arnaud Alexandre, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Ocean Detailing USA Management, Inc., a Florida corporation and Russell C. Grande, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv- 61775 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida's Minimum Wage Law. Ocean Detailing provides in-house detailing services as well as onsite detailing services to auto dealers. Plaintiff is represented by: Robin I. Frank, Esq. SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 477-7800 Facsimile: (561) 477-7722 E-Mail: rifrank@sbwlawfirm.com PACIFIC PROCESS: "Andrews" Files New Suit Over Unpaid Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW ANDREWS and MIKE PRESTON, each individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PACIFIC PROCESS SYSTEMS, INC.; ALAN GEORGE; and JERRY WISE, Case No. 2:16-cv-01135-CB (W.D. Pa., July 28, 2016), is brought as a collective action against Pacific for its alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. A lawsuit, which was pending in the District Court, was filed on September 24, 2014, and styled Matthew Andrews, et al. v. Pacific Process Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01308-CRE (Pacific I). After conditional certification of the settlement class in Pacific I, 82 Pacific employees ultimately joined the class. The parties to Pacific I entered into a settlement agreement on June 1, 2015, which called for Pacific to make incremental payments over the following 18 months. The Settlement Agreement was guaranteed by the owners of Pacific, Alan George and Jerry Wise. The Plaintiffs allege that Pacific has failed to make payments due under the Settlement Agreement. This lawsuit seeks to recover the payments owed under the Settlement Agreement. Messrs. Andrews and Preston each bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other situated persons, who entered a settlement agreement with Pacific in Pacific I. Pacific is a California for-profit corporation headquartered in Bakersfield, California. Pacific provides a comprehensive range of well testing and production services for the petroleum industry around the world. Pacific provides oilfield services and equipment for offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration and production operations worldwide. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Telecopier: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - 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 PALOS VERDES, CA: Lunada Bay Boys Lose Bid to Dismiss Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Megan Barnes, writing for Daily Breeze, reports that a federal judge has denied the Lunada Bay Boys' first attempts to extract themselves from a lawsuit seeking to ban them from the Palos Verdes Estates surfing spot they are accused of ruthlessly defending from outsiders. Attorneys for Alan "Jalian" Johnston, Brant Blakeman, Michael Rae Papayans, Angelo Ferrara and a 17-year-old boy filed motions earlier in July to dismiss admiralty claims against them in the unprecedented class-action lawsuit, which was filed in March by El Segundo police Officer Cory Spencer and surfer Diana Milena Reed. In a written order on July 22, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero denied their requests, arguing that because the surfers are accused of recklessly impeding traffic on the waters, circling boats and even allegedly running over Mr. Spencer with a surfboard -- slicing his hand open -- the activity indeed has the potential to disrupt maritime activity and falls under the jurisdiction of federal admiralty law. In essence, the lawsuit has now made it past the first round of pleadings and will go on to discovery, when Mr. Spencer and Ms. Reed's attorneys say they will provide witness lists and evidence detailing decades of threats and intimidation at the hands of the surfers. The federal lawsuit seeks to classify the Bay Boys as a criminal street gang, ban them from the shoreline with a gang injunction and force tony Palos Verdes Estates and its police force to prosecute vandalism and harassment cases it has long been accused of turning a blind eye to. Attorneys for the city and Police Chief Jeff Kepley successfully had the lawsuit's California Coastal Act claims against them dismissed, though Otero would not dismiss other claims. Ferrara's attorney, Mark Fields, declined to comment on the lawsuit on July 25. Others representing the surfers could not be reached. Several of the surfers have denied they are gang members and say localism is a normal part of the competitive nature of surfing and sports in general. Mr. Johnston's attorney, Pat Carey, told the Southern California News Group in May that the lawsuit does not belong in federal court, and that the characterization of the surfers as gang members is grossly inaccurate. "I quite frankly find it disrespectful, as a former prosecutor, to the real victims of actual street gangs that have plagued the city of Los Angeles," Mr. Carey said at the time. Palos Verdes Estates police arrested Johnston in April on allegations outlined in the lawsuit that he sexually harassed Reed and exposed himself to her on the beach, but the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office declined to file charges due to lack of evidence. Palos Verdes Estates leaders, who say the affluent community is under attack by overblown media hype, voted July 12 to tear down a stone patio illegally constructed by the surfers and used as a hangout spot. Kurt Franklin, a member of the legal team that filed the lawsuit, said he believes he and Torrance attorney Vic Otten will be able to get the suit certified as a class-action on behalf of all who have been denied access to the waves over the years. They also plan to file a lawsuit at the state level for the Coastal Act claims that Otero dismissed. "We're confident were going to make improvements to accessibility at the bay," he said. PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Court Grants Judgment on Pleadings ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, DIANE HAMILTON, LYNNE P. CUNNINGHAM and CLAIRE KANE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PARTNERS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., PARTNERS COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE, INC., THE BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, INC., BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S/FAULKNER HOSPITALS, INC., MARTHA'S VINEYARD HOSPITAL, INC., THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, McLEAN HEALTHCARE, INC., THE McLEAN HOSPITAL CORPORATION, NANTUCKET COTTAGE HOSPITAL, NEWTON-WELLESLEY HOSPITAL, NEWTON-WELLESLEY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., NORTH SHORE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., NSMC HEALTHCARE, INC., THE SALEM HOSPITAL, UNION HOSPITAL AUXILIARY OF LYNN, INC., and FAULKNER HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants. , Case No. 09-11461-DPW (D. Mass). Plaintiffs Diane Hamilton, Lynne P. Cunningham and Claire Kane (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought the action raising federal claims on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees of a number of healthcare facilities allegedly affiliated with Partners Healthcare System, Inc. Plaintiffs contend that their employers maintain policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (First Cause) depriving them of compensation for time worked. Plaintiffs further contend that their employers' policies violate recordkeeping (Second Cause) and fiduciary (Third Cause) responsibilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and constitute a scheme to deceive Plaintiffs and deprive them of their wages using mail fraud in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (Fourth Cause). Plaintiffs' claims are premised on allegations that Defendants maintain pay policies that deny Plaintiffs their compensation for all hours worked. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants (1) automatically deduct thirty minutes of time per day from each employee's paycheck for meal breaks without ensuring that such breaks are taken, (2) suffer or permit Plaintiffs to work before and/or after each scheduled shift without compensation, and (3) suffer or permit Plaintiffs to attend compensable training programs without pay. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on all counts. Defendants challenge Plaintiffs' standing, citing Plaintiffs' failure to allege an employment relationship with any particular defendant. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to plead facts sufficient to allege plausible FLSA, ERISA, or RICO claims. In his Memorandum and Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/wsIZyl from Leagle.com, Judge Woodlock found that Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to allege a plausible claim. Diane Hamilton, et al. are represented by Jody L. Newman, Esq. -- nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com -- COLLORA LLP, Michael J. Lingle, Esq. -- mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com -- and Patrick J. Solomon, Esq. -- psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com -- THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP; William A. Haddad, Esq. -- whaddad@beckreed.com -- BECK REED RIDEN LLP Partners Health Care System, Inc., et al are represented by Angelo Spinola, Esq. -- aspinola@littler.com -- Jerry H. Walters, Jr., Esq. -- jwalters@littler.com -- Lisa A. Schreter, Esq. -- lschreter@littler.com -- Anne M. Mellen, Esq. -- amellen@littler.com -- Bradley E. Strawn, Esq. -- bstrawn@littler.com -- Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq. -- ckaczmarek@littler.com -- and David C. Casey, Esq. -- dcasey@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. PAYPAL INC: December 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- If you are a current or former user of PayPal in the United States who had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015, this Notice describes your rights and potential benefits from a class action settlement. This website summarizes a proposed class action settlement of claims brought against PayPal, Inc. ("PayPal") and eBay Inc. ("eBay") (together, "Defendants"). The Settlement resolves a lawsuit in which Plaintiffs allege that PayPal improperly handled disputed transactions on PayPal accounts and improperly placed holds and reserves on accounts or closed or suspended accounts. Plaintiffs also allege that PayPal failed to provide annual error- resolution notices and monthly account statements under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. You are part of the Settlement if you had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015. You are part of the Settlement and also may be eligible to submit a Claim for a cash payment if you had a hold or reserve placed on your account and/or your account was closed or suspended by PayPal between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015. The Settlement will require PayPal to implement or maintain certain business practices and to pay between $3,200,000 and $4,000,000. At least $2,240,000, less notice and administration costs, is expected to be paid to settlement class members who had holds or reserves placed on their accounts and submit a claim for payment, and up to an additional $800,000 will be used to make payments to settlement class members who had holds or reserves placed on their accounts or whose accounts were closed or suspended who claim damages. Settlement Class Counsel will ask the Court for up to $960,000 to be paid as fees and expenses for investigating the facts, litigating the case and negotiating the settlement and for service awards of up to $2,500 for each named class representative. The two sides disagree on whether Plaintiffs would have won at trial. Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read this website carefully. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM If you had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015 and had a hold or reserve placed on your account, and/or the account was closed or suspended by PayPal, you are a Claims Class Member. In order to receive a Settlement payment, you must timely submit a Claim. If you had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and November 5, 2015, but you did not have a hold or reserve placed on your account, and your account was not closed or suspended by PayPal, then you are only an Injunctive Relief Class Member, and you may not submit a Claim for payment. EXCLUDE YOURSELF If you are a Claims Class Member, you may exclude yourself from the Claims Class and receive no payment, but will you will remain in the Settlement. If you are an Injunctive Relief Class Member, you may not exclude yourself from the Settlement. OBJECT You can write to the Court about why you don't like the Settlement. GO TO A HEARING You can ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement. DO NOTHING If you do nothing, you will not receive any payment and will no longer be able to sue Defendants and the other Released Parties for the conduct alleged in the lawsuit. These rights and options--and the deadlines to exercise them--are explained in the Notice. The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Payments will only be made if the Court approves the Settlement and after appeals are resolved. Please be patient. To qualify for payment, you must be a member of the Claims Class. To receive a payment, you must submit a Claim Form through the Settlement Website, www.accountholdsettlement.com Read the instructions carefully and fill out the Claim Form completely. The last day to submit Claim Forms is October 14, 2016. If you're either an Injunctive Relief Class Member or a Claims Class Member, you can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You can't ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement agreed to by the parties. If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be sent out and PayPal will be under no obligation to implement or maintain the specified business practices and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object. You may object to the proposed Settlement in writing. You may also appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All objections must be in writing and must: (i) clearly identify the case name and number (Zepeda v. PayPal, Case Number 10-cv-02500-SBA); (ii) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (iii) be filed and/or postmarked on or before October 14, 2016; (iv) include your name, address and telephone number; (v) include an email address associated with your PayPal account(s); (vi) include a sentence confirming, under penalty of perjury, that you are a Settlement Class Member; (vii) identify the factual basis and legal grounds for the objection to the Settlement; (viii) identify any witnesses whom you may call to testify at the Final Approval Hearing; and (ix) include copies of any exhibits you intend to offer into evidence at the Final Approval Hearing. By submitting an objection, you agree to sit for a deposition in your county or other agreed location. If you are a Claims Class Member, to exclude yourself from the Claims Class, you must send a personally signed letter by October 14, 2016 containing the following information: (i) your name, address and telephone number; (ii) the primary e-mail address associated with your PayPal account(s); and (iii) the following statement: I request to be excluded from the Claims Class in Zepeda v. PayPal, Northern District of California Case No. 10-cv-02500 SBA. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than October 14, 2016 to: Zepeda v. PayPal Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4259 Portland, OR 97208-4259 If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement payment, but you will still be bound by the releases provided to Defendants by the Injunctive Relief Class. However, you may be able to sue (or continue to sue) PayPal in the future for monetary relief. If you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that case immediately. You must exclude yourself to continue your own lawsuit for monetary relief. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on December 14, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. PT at the United States District Court for Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, courtroom 1. At this hearing the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are timely and complete objections, the Court will consider them. The Court may also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. The Court has approved the following attorneys to represent you and other Settlement Class Members in this action: Quantum Legal LLC; Lexington Law Group; Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.; and Seeger Weiss LLP. These lawyers are called Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. This website summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see the Settlement Agreement at https://is.gd/BBiTAG or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS. PEAK CAMPUS: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Ads -------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an Atlanta, Ga.-based manager of apartment buildings for college students could face a nationwide class action, after an Illinois man accused the company of sending him and potentially thousands of others spam text ads, allegedly in violation of a federal law governing how and when companies can contact potential customers on their mobile phones. On July 25, plaintiff William Truong, identified in the complaint solely as a resident of Illinois, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Peak Campus Management. According to the company's website, Peak Campus Management specializes in managing apartment properties in communities surrounding colleges and universities. The company boasts 95 properties in 29 states. In Illinois, Peak Campus's website advertises buildings located near the University of Illinois at Chaimpaign-Urbana; Illinois State University in Bloomington- Normal; Western Illinois University in Macomb; and in Chicago, near both the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Chicago, among others. Peak Campus's website does not list rents for its properties in Illinois. But according to an article published in 2015 by DNAInfo.com, rents at the Vue53 property in Hyde Park, which Peak Campus lists among those in its portfolio, start at $1,400 per month for unfurnished studio apartments. The complaint does not definitively state if Mr. Truong was a tenant at a Peak Campus-managed property, or how Peak Campus may have acquired his mobile number. But in the lawsuit, Mr. Truong said Peak Campus has, since 2014, sent advertisements via text message to him and potentially thousands of others like him. He said he received the first message in October 2014, in which Peak Campus allegedly offered Truong $200 to "renew" a lease at Peak Campus's Tailor Lofts property near UIC in Chicago. Mr. Truong said he continued to receive "numerous additional spam text message advertisements" from Peak Campus "for . . . weeks thereafter, further invading his privacy." He alleged the text message ads were "unauthorized" and violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as they "were sent en masse through the use of a short code without the prior express written consent" of those who received them. Mr. Truong asked the court to certify a class of additional plaintiffs across the country, which he estimated could number in the thousands. He also asked for the court to award unspecified actual or statutory damages, plus attorney fees. Mr. Truong is represented in the action by attorney Michael J. McMorrow -- mike@mjmcmorrow.com -- of McMorrow Law PC, of Chicago. PFIZER INC: Settles Securities Class Action Over Arthritis Drugs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Pfizer Inc. is settling a securities class-action lawsuit accusing it of keeping investors in the dark about the cardiovascular risks of the arthritis drugs Celebrex and Bextra, avoiding what could have been a drawn-out trial in the 12-year-old case. Pfizer officials were accused in the suit of hiding information about studies suggesting use of the drugs may increase risks of heart attacks and strokes. The case was on track to go before a jury after the federal appeals court in New York in April ruled Pfizer must face the claims. The same court on July 27 put on hold Pfizer's request for a re- hearing of the appeal so that a lower-court judge could consider the proposed accord with plaintiffs led by the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana. Neha Wadhwa, a spokeswoman for New York-based Pfizer, said the company wasn't admitting to any wrongdoing under the settlement. "This resolution reflects a desire by the company to avoid the distraction of continued litigation and focus on the needs of patients and prescribers," Ms. Wadhwa said in an e-mailed statement. Allan Ripp, an outside spokesman for the lead law firm in the case, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, said the terms of the settlement are confidential. He declined to comment further. Earlier Settlement In 2009, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle U.S. claims that the drugmaker improperly marketed Bextra and other drugs. The total consisted of a $1.3 billion criminal penalty over Bextra marketing and $1 billion in civil fines in connection with improper sales of other medicines. The Louisiana pension fund sued Pfizer in 2004 on behalf of investors who bought the drugmaker's stock from 2000 to 2005. It claimed company executives were improperly touting Celebrex and Bextra as safer than competing drugs and that those statements artificially inflated the company's stock price. Pfizer in 2012 settled a related class-action suit led by Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, which had accused it of manipulating the results of a long-term clinical study of Celebrex's effect on the gastrointestinal system. The plaintiffs in that case claimed Pfizer released only a six-month portion of the study in April 2000 after the drug didn't show the desired reduction in side effects compared with other drugs. Pfizer won that case in district court, only to have it reinstated on appeal in January 2009. Warning Label U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials rejected Pfizer's request in February 2001 to market the drug without the standard GI warning label, sending the stock down about 9 percent, according to the complaint. Pfizer settled hundreds of cases filed by individual plaintiffs in 2008, around the time that Celebrex, in the same class of medicines as Merck & Co.'s recalled Vioxx, was Pfizer's third- best-selling drug. The cases were filed by customers who claimed they'd been injured. Pfizer withdrew Bextra in April 2005 after it was tied to a potentially fatal skin condition. The original case is In Re: Pfizer Securities Litigation, 1:04-cv- 9866, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). The appeal is 14-2853, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan). PHILADELPHIA GAS: Landlords Want Judge to Nullify Gas Liens ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Maykuth, writing for Philly.com, reports that Philadelphia landlords urged a federal judge on July 26 to nullify all outstanding gas liens linked to deadbeat tenants, a move PGW said could drastically alter its business and increase the bills of customers in good standing. Lawyers for five landlords asked a federal judge to include all city landlords in his March ruling, which declared that Philadelphia Gas Works' manner of placing liens on rental properties for debts owed by tenants is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner ruled in March that landlords did not receive due process when the city-owned PGW failed to provide sufficient notice that their tenants were behind in payments, and that landlords would be held liable. A lawyer representing the landlords encouraged Joyner to make a broad decision and declare the case a class action. "When a constitutional violation has been found, the court has an obligation to remedy it," said John J. Grogan, of the Langer Grogan & Diver law firm, who represented the landlords along with Irv Ackelsberg. Lawyers for the city, which owns PGW, argued that the judge's ruling should pertain only to the landlords named in the lawsuit, and not be declared a class action. They also said that if PGW could not collect the debts from landlords, the $6 million a year the city now recovers from liens would have to be paid by increasing rates of PGW's other customers. "Five hundred thousand PGW customers are going to be affected by a group of landlords who failed to take responsibility," said the city's lawyer, Jeffrey M. Scott -- jscott@archerlaw.com -- of the Archer & Greiner law firm. While the judge ruled that PGW's method of putting legal encumbrances on property was unconstitutional, Mr. Scott argued that the landlords had not proven that an injury had occurred, prompting a sarcastic response from the judge. "If a lien were placed on your property, would you feel you were injured by that, or is that something that would make you happy, content?" Judge Joyner said. "Tell me." PGW, as a municipal utility, has the authority to place liens on private property to recover uncollected bills. Investor-owned utilities, such as Peco, have no equivalent power. Liens are legal encumbrances that must be settled when real estate changes hands. The suit was brought in 2014 by landlords Lea and Gerard Augustin, Thomas and Donna McSorley, and Richmond Waterfront Industrial Park L.L.C., which is owned by investor David Wolf. PGW dunned them for tenant debts ranging from $1,000 to more than $27,000. Some landlords complained that they were unaware of the liens until they tried to sell their properties. Judge Joyner's ruling in March rejected PGW's practice of imposing liens without adequate notice, leaving property owners scant recourse to defend themselves or to pressure their tenants to pay. The judge's ruling could affect about 24,000 active gas liens totaling $27.6 million on residential rental properties, and 4,300 liens totaling $7.5 million on commercial rental properties, according to testimony. About three dozen spectators attended the July 26 hearing, including the plaintiffs and several landlords who said they wanted to join the class action. The spectators also included representatives of the Philadelphia Gas Commission, the city's oversight body, and some PGW executives. PGW said that if it were forced to tell landlords that specific tenants were in arrears it might place the utility into conflict with PUC regulations protecting the confidentiality of customer information. PGW says that landlords are sufficiently notified about tenant debts through its Landlord Cooperation Program, which holds registered residential landlords harmless for future tenant arrearages if PGW has access to the tenants' meters. But there is no comparable program for commercial landlords. In 2012, PGW created a Commercial Lien Notification Program, which gives registered landlords 30 days' notice of a lien on a commercial property, but landlords say the notifications arrive too late for them to get tenants to pay. PGW has already decided to appeal. PVH CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in "Scott-George" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment in the case captioned, JODI SCOTT-GEORGE, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PVH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:13-CV-0441-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs are former retail store employees of PVH Corporation's (PVH). Plaintiffs have alleged seven causes of action against PVH based on violations of California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1194, and 1198. The Court granted class certification of eight subclasses and appointed Plaintiffs Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wiggs as the Class Representatives for subclasses. Following the Court's order granting class certification, Defendant moved for summary judgment by asserting that (1) Plaintiffs cannot impose liability on Retail Stores because they have sued PVH not its subsidiary, Retail Stores, and have failed to justify disregarding the corporate form; (2) Plaintiff cannot succeed on their claim concerning bag checks because carrying a bag is optional and the time associated with such bag checks is de minimis; and (3) Plaintiffs seek damages under an outdated section of California Labor Code Sec.226(a), which imposes penalties for improperly recorded wage statements. In his Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/DKjf1y from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley is not convinced that Plaintiffs have presented enough evidence to raise a triable issue of fact under the integrated enterprise test. Specifically, Plaintiffs fail to produce evidence that would suggest that PVH exercised day-to-day control over Retail Store's employment decisions. Summary Judgment is denied as to Plaintiffs' Wage Statement Claim because Defendant failed to provide any authority that would support an alternative interpretation. Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that PVH and Retail Stores meet the "integrated enterprise" test required to pierce the corporate veil between the two companies. Thus, because Retail Stores is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit, the Subclasses of this lawsuit must be restricted to nonexempt employees of PVH. Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wiggs are represented by Ronald H. Bae, Esq. -- rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- and Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq. -- oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP PVH Corporation is represented by Dean Hansell, Esq. -- dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- and Samantha Michele Kantor, Esq. -- samantha.kantor@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS LLP PILGRIM'S PRIDE: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Compensation, Reinstatement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Victor Gonzalez and Maria Hurtado, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00948 (N.D. Fla., July 14, 2016), seeks compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, reinstatement of Plaintiffs to positions comparable to their prior position, with back pay plus interest, pension rights, and all benefits, front pay, compensatory damages, including for emotional distress, punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained, all costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting these claims and such further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a food producer and distributor of poultry with its principal place of business in Greenly, Colorado. Plaintiffs worked at their Florida facility located at 19740 U.S., Live Oak, FL 32060. They claim to be issued debit cards in lieu of wages. Defendant unreasonably refused to accommodate Gonzales claim for disability and terminated him for engaging in protected activity under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main No.: 813-224-0431 Direct No.: 813-379-2565 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com PIZZA HUT KANSAS: "Creech" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Reimbursements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trina Creech, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02518 (D. Kan., July 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unreimbursed business-related expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas, Inc. owns and operates approximately 171 Pizza Hut franchise restaurants in nine states, including Kansas. Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver who used his own automobile to deliver pizza and other food items to customers. Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, Missouri 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com PMZ REAL ESTATE: Judge Allows Fraud Class Action to Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Modesto Bee reports that a judge in Contra Costa County refused for a second time to dismiss what could become a class- action fraud lawsuit against Modesto's PMZ Real Estate. Four former PMZ clients from San Joaquin County claim they were played in "a kickback scheme that resulted in PMZ receiving secret profits," Judge Barry Goode said in a written ruling that the case will go forward. The former customers say PMZ agents directed them to a shell company run by PMZ for natural-hazard reports in 2009 and 2010 home transactions. That company, Valley NHD, then obtained the reports from a Concord firm, Disclosure Source, which shared profits with PMZ, the lawsuit says. In theory, hundreds or thousands of PMZ's former clients from Modesto and beyond could join the lawsuit if Judge Goode eventually deems it worthy of class-action status. PMZ, the leading property firm in Stanislaus County, has predicted vindication in the long run. Natural-hazard reports list property risks such as floods, wildfires and earthquakes. RANSOM MEMORIAL: Faces Kansas Suit Under FLSA, Wage Payment Act --------------------------------------------------------------- JOY FISCHER and MELISSA BURKHART, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RANSOM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case 6:16- cv-01305 (D. Kansas, August 1, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Kansas Wage Payment Act. Ransom Memorial Hospital is a 44-bed acute care medical facility in Ottawa, Kansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean M. McGivern, Esq. Nathan R. Elliott, Esq. GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC 218 N. Mosley St. Wichita, KS 67202 Phone: (316) 266-4058 Fax: (316) 462-5566 E-mail: sean@graybillhazlewood.com nathan@graybillhazlewood.com REDBACK ENERGY: Faces "Caffey" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CAFFEY, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, DAVID BROKE, MIKE FERNANDES, PAUL JACOBL, DANTE DOMENICHELLI, PHIL LANCASTER, and MARK LAYTON, Individually as officers of REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC Case 5:16-cv-00777 (W.D. Tex., August 1, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC -- http://www.redbackenergyservices.com/-- is a rental and service company that serves the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a decision is pending on the motion to dismiss the case, Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed 2015), the plaintiff brought a class action against RJR Vapor on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE e-cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that RJR Vapor failed to advise users that they potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The plaintiff asserts failure to warn claims under California's Proposition 65, as well as California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq. and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and damages. RJR Vapor moved to dismiss contending, among other things, that plaintiff's action was governed in its entirety by Proposition 65 and that the plaintiff failed to give the 60-day pre-suit notice required by Proposition 65, requiring that the entire case be dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss was argued on March 2, 2016. A decision is pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Additive Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the No Additive/Natural Claim Cases, a hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss is set for November 30, 2016. Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in the labeling, advertising and promotional materials for NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative nationwide and/or state-specific class actions against SFNTC and, in some instances, RAI. A total of 15 such actions have been filed in nine U.S. district courts. Each of these cases is discussed below. In various combinations, plaintiffs in these cases generally allege violations of state deceptive and unfair trade practice statutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use of descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free" in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The actions seek various categories of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive relief (including medical monitoring and cessation programs), interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one action filed a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate these actions before one district court for pretrial purposes. On April 11, 2016, the JPML ordered that these cases be consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge James O. Browning in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, referred to as the transferee court, and the then- pending and later-filed cases now are consolidated for pretrial purposes in that court. On June 17, 2016, the transferee court entered a scheduling order providing for the plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by August 22, 2016; defendants to file motions to dismiss by September 29, 2016; a hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss on November 30, 2016; plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by April 3, 2018; and a hearing on the class certification motion on July 13-14, 2018. The cases that were filed in or transferred for pretrial purposes to the transferee court are as follows: * Sproule v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes. * Brattain v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes. * Rothman v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of New York purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Minnesota subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Haksal v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California, Illinois, Minnesota, and New Mexico subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Cuebas v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and New York subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Okstad v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class and sixteen putative state-based subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Ruggiero v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.D.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Maryland subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Waldo v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Grandison v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. E.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California, Florida and New York subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Gudmundson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. V.I., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of U.S. Virgin Islands purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * LeCompte v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * White v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Johnston v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Cole v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and North Carolina subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Settlement in "Sateriale" Case Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has approved the settlement in the case, Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed 2009), is a class action against RJR Tobacco on behalf of a putative class of persons who were unable to redeem "Camel Cash" after termination of the "Camel Cash" series of promotions for RJR Tobacco's CAMEL brand cigarettes in 2007. The plaintiffs asserted claims based on the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Law, breach of contract and promissory estoppel, and the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses. In December 2010, the district court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered final judgment. In July 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, referred to as the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. On December 19, 2014, the district court declined to certify a national class, found that the plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claim could not be tried on a class basis, and, on the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, certified a class of "all persons in California who, as adult smokers, were assigned registration numbers by RJR Tobacco, collected C-Notes, and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006." The parties later agreed to a settlement under which RJR Tobacco would make available non-tobacco merchandise to class members for Camel Cash that they held on October 1, 2006, and pay plaintiffs' counsel $4.75 million in fees and costs. On May 2, 2016, the court approved the settlement. The non-tobacco merchandise will be made available to class members from August 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Feinman" Class Suit Dismisssed -------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiff's counsel in the case, Feinman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., has voluntarily dismissed the case. Feinman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., filed 2015), is a class action against RJR Tobacco on behalf of a putative class of persons who resided in New York, Iowa or South Dakota as of October 1, 2006, and as adult smokers, purchased CAMEL-brand filtered cigarettes along with C-Notes, collected C-Notes and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006. The plaintiff alleges breach of contract claims based on the termination of the "Camel Cash" series of promotions by RJR Tobacco's CAMEL cigarettes in 2007 and seek actual damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. On January 16, 2016, the court conditionally approved the parties' settlement agreement and dismissal of the case subject to the court in Sateriale granting its final approval of that settlement agreement. Pursuant to the Sateriale settlement agreement, plaintiff's counsel in Feinman voluntarily dismissed the case on June 16, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Stayed "Young" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has entered an order staying the case, Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct. Orleans Parish, La., filed 1997), the plaintiff brought a class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allegedly suffered injury as a result of exposure to ETS from cigarettes manufactured by defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2016, the court entered an order staying the case, including all discovery, pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 76 Filter Cases Pending v. Lorillard ------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 76 filter cases. Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of June 30, 2016, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 76 Filter Cases. Since January 1, 2013, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $43.7 million in settlements to resolve 160 claims asserted in Filter Cases. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "DeLisle" Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the jury in a Filter Case, DeLisle v. A. W. Chesterton Co. (Cir. Ct. Broward County, Fla., filed 2012), on September 13, 2013, found for the plaintiff on the negligence and strict liability claims; awarded the plaintiffs $8 million in compensatory damages; and found Lorillard Tobacco 22% at fault, Hollingsworth & Vose 22% at fault, and the other defendants 56% at fault. Punitive damages were not at issue. On November 6, 2013, the trial court entered final judgment against Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of $3.52 million. Lorillard Tobacco appealed to the Fourth DCA. Oral argument occurred on February 16, 2016. A decision is pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Update in Smokeless Tobacco Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in 1999, when the IPIC litigation was first filed, the named defendants included manufacturers of smokeless products, including Conwood Company, LLC (now known as American Snuff Company, LLC) and others. When the IPIC plaintiffs filed discovery responses in IPIC listing the products they used, 41 of them listed a smokeless product. Six of those 41 plaintiffs listed a brand owned by American Snuff (Levi Garrett). Seven listed a brand (Beechnut) once manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco (now manufactured by National Tobacco Company). On December 3, 2001, the IPIC court severed all smokeless claims and all smokeless defendants from IPIC. There was no order staying the case during IPIC. In the ensuing 15 years, the plaintiffs in the severed cases did nothing to pursue the cases. The plaintiffs now seek to activate various smokeless claims, including certain plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed in IPIC after severance of the smokeless claims and whose claims are not counted in the 41 claims described. The court has scheduled a status conference on July 11, 2016 to address smokeless claims. The defendants will object to any effort to activate these cases due to the fact that the plaintiffs took no action for the last 15 years. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in ERISA Litigation Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that briefing is underway in the plaintiff's appeal in the ERISA Litigation. In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds. In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in September 2008. A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. On February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have existed. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision and remanded the case back to the district court to apply the "would have standard." On February 18, 2016, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the defendants have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a fiduciary acting with prudence would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the time and in the manner that the defendants did. On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff appealed. Briefing is underway. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Delaware Shareholder Actions Closed ------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has issued an order closing the Delaware shareholder actions and approving the agreed-upon payment of attorneys' fees and expenses. Delaware. Between July 18, 2014 and August 12, 2014, Lorillard shareholders filed purported class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the then-proposed merger between Lorillard and RAI. The lawsuits were captioned In re Lorillard Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9904-CB, and are referred to as the Delaware Actions. The plaintiffs alleged that the transaction offered unfair and inadequate consideration for Lorillard stock and sought additional disclosure of facts relating to the Merger in connection with the shareholder vote, higher Merger consideration, and monetary damages. RAI and Lorillard subsequently filed supplemental disclosures that mooted the disclosure claims. These supplemental disclosures provided additional information regarding the fairness opinion and financial analyses provided to Lorillard's board of directors by its financial advisors, the background of the Merger and alternatives to the Merger that were considered by Lorillard's board of directors and the timing of discussions regarding the composition of the board of directors of the combined company and employment of Lorillard management. On May 18, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the Delaware Actions with prejudice as to certain plaintiffs and without prejudice as to all other plaintiffs and members of the putative class. The Delaware Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining the plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. RAI and plaintiffs' counsel then agreed that, after the entry of an order closing the Delaware Actions, RAI would pay fees and expenses of $215,000 in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' counsel's claims for attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 22, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order closing the Delaware Actions and approving the agreed-upon payment of attorneys' fees and expenses. RAI then paid the agreed-upon attorneys' fees and expenses. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in North Carolina Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a decision is pending on the appeal in the North Carolina shareholder action. RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been named as defendants in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, et al., brought in North Carolina state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by a person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to RAI shareholders by approving the BAT Share Purchase and the sharing of technology with BAT. The amended complaint also alleges that there were various conflicts of interest in the transaction, and that RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by its board of directors. The North Carolina Action seeks injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other remedies. On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur on January 16, 2015. RAI believed that the North Carolina Action was without merit and that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January 17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release the disclosure claims which were or could have been asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which it did on January 20, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal. Oral argument on the appeal occurred on April 27, 2016, and a decision is pending. On February 17, 2016, the trial court approved the partial settlement, including the plaintiff's unopposed request for $415,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The partial settlement did not affect the consideration paid to Lorillard shareholders in connection with the Merger. RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in "Argabright" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted, in part, the motion to dismiss all counts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case captioned, LAWRENCE ARGABRIGHT, VICTORIA FECHT, and LIBRADO MONTANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD) (D.N.J.). In the putative multistate class action, Plaintiff alleges that Rheem manufactured defective residential heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems under the Rheem and Ruud brand names. Plaintiffs in the proposed class consist of all individuals who purchased or obtained Defendant's HVAC systems, and the following claims are asserted in the Complaint: breach of express and implied warranties and violation the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301, et seq.;claims for fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and strict product liability; statutory claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq., the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. Sec. 44-1521 et seq., and New York General Business Law Sec. 349; and claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts claims for breach of express warranty (Count I); breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count II); violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) (Count V); fraudulent concealment (Count III); negligent misrepresentation (Count IV); strict product liability (Count VI); violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), New York General Business Law (N.Y. GBL) Sec. 349, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (ACFA) (Counts VII, VIII, & IX); unjust enrichment (Count X); and declaratory relief (Count XI). Defendant Rheem Manufacturing move to dismiss all counts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In his Opinion dated June 28, 2016 available at https://is.gd/YWuyyR from Leagle.com, Judge Simandle denied motion to dismiss Count II with respect to Fecht's claim because her claim is time-barred and Count V because Plaintiff failed to state a viable state law claim for breach of express warranty and granted Defendant's motion with respect to the remaining claims. Count I is dismissed because it is insufficient to plausibly make out Plaintiffs' claims for breach of warranty. Lawrence Argabright, et al. are represented by: Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Dr, Port Washington, NY 11050 Tel: (516)466-6500 Rheem Manufacturing Company is represented by Aaron Van Nostrand, Esq. -- vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- and David Jay, Esq. -- jayd@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TAURIG, LLP RIDDELL: Ex-NFL Player Files Class Action Over Helmet Issues ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Roberts, writing for Yahoo! Finance, reports that just weeks after a US appeals court refused to reconsider its decision to approve the NFL's concussion settlement with former players, two new lawsuits have come along over the same issue. But the new suits do not target the NFL. Former running back Paul Hornung, now 80, has filed a complaint against the helmet-maker Riddell, while former safety Haruki Nakamura, 30, is suing insurer Lloyd's of London. Legal experts tell Yahoo Finance that Mr. Nakamura's suit has a better chance at success. But both are reminders that the ongoing debate over football head-injuries is far from resolved, and both have the potential to shed new light on which parties that do business with the NFL are liable for NFL head injuries. Class action against the NFL In April of last year, a judge approved the NFL's settlement offer in a class-action lawsuit brought by former players who suffered concussions. The deal provides payments for ex-players suffering from a handful of neurological disorders, giving them a maximum award of $5 million if they suffer from ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's disease). On average, injured players are likely to receive only $190,000, and many are dissatisfied with the figure. But the only option remaining for those petitioning for more is the Supreme Court, which is unlikely to hear the case. Riddell was named as a co-defendant with the NFL in that same class-action suit, but was not involved in the settlement procedure. The federal judge may still return to Ridell's role in the lawsuit after all avenues of appeal against the NFL settlement have been exhausted. Hornungs against Riddell The complaint from Paul Hornung and his wife Angela is separate from the class action. It accuses Riddell of failing to warn players that its helmets would not prevent head injuries. "Riddell's plastic helmet provided no protection for Paul Hornung's brain," the complaint reads, "yet players, including Paul Hornung, were led to believe that the innovative helmets would do so." Why go after Riddell instead of the NFL? Because in a product liability case like this one, a plaintiff can only go after the manufacturer (Riddell), not the employer (NFL) that uses the product -- unless the employer altered the product in some way. Product liability cases assert a so-called "failure to warn" claim; this appeared against Ridell in the class action suit as well. Mr. Hornung's complaint will hinge on what kind of warning came with Riddell's helmets. For a strict product liability claim, the plaintiff does not have to prove fraud -- only that the product did not have an adequate warning. "There is no knowledge requirement, and there isn't even a carelessness requirement," explains Geoff Rapp, a law professor at University of Toledo specializing in torts and sports. "As long as you can establish that the product is defective, you don't even need to claim that they knew or should have known. If you can show that the warning was inadequate and didn't communicate all the dangers, you can win." There is precedent for Mr. Hornung's complaint. In 2013 a Colorado jury awarded $11.5 million to the family of paralyzed high school football player Rhett Ridolfi. The jury determined that Riddell was negligent in not warning players and their families of the helmet's inability to prevent brain injury, and it assessed Riddell 27% of the fault, or $3.1 million. But it did not agree that Riddell's helmet was defective. The exact way in which helmets are distributed to players--or were back when Mr. Hornung played--may become a key, granular issue in the complaint. Riddell's responsibility is to put the warning on the product, "in a way that the end user will see the warning," Mr. Rapp says. "Like when you buy a bike for your kid, there's a decal stuck right on the body of the bike so you can't possibly miss it. The same applies to the helmet, it needs to have a warning on it or in a place where the players see it. If it goes to trial, I think we will get very specific arguments about the language in the warning. " The uncertainty about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a relatively new scientific discovery, helps Riddell and makes Mr. Hornung's case a tough one for him. "Obviously you can't warn about dangers you didn't know exist," says Mr. Rapp. ROMA SAUSAGE: "Begic" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAFET BEGIC and REDA TAOUFIR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ROMA SAUSAGE INC. and STEVEN BROCCOLI, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 6:16-cv-00937-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., July 28, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are former bakery and food prep employees of the Defendants' sausage company and deli located in Utica, New York. Roma Sausage Inc. is an active New York corporation with its principal place of business located in Utica. Steven Broccoli is an owner and operator of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com SAINT-GOBAIN: First PFOA-Related Personal Injury Suit Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- Edward Damon, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that the first lawsuit that claims water contaminated with PFOA led to an illness has been filed by a New York City firm. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a village resident by attorneys with Weitz & Luxenburg in federal court on July 27. The complaint alleges that exposure to the man-made chemical through drinking water directly caused resident James Donavan to develop illnesses. Mr. Donavan seeks at least $2.5 million in damages to cover medical costs and loss of property value. The complaint also claims negligence against the two companies the state says is responsible and calls for a medical monitoring program for area residents. The complaint was filed the same day a federal judge appointed the law firm to lead class action lawsuits against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell International. Judge Daniel J. Stewart on July 27 ordered Weitz & Luxenberg and Faraci Lang to serve as co-lead interim class counsel for those suits, and Powers & Santola as liaison counsel for the four related class action cases. The personal injury lawsuit is the first one filed since Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed a new law extending the statute of limitations for cases involving hazardous substance exposure. The class action cases are separate and don't address personal injury directly, but do seek to recover damage to property. The new law makes it possible for Mr. Donavan to bring a lawsuit forward, according to Robin L. Greenwald, head of the Environmental and Consumer Protection Unit. Donavan was diagnosed more than three years ago. "It avoids a legal argument and allows us to proceed on the merits of the case," she told the Banner on July 27. Greenwald said that while she expects more personal injury cases will be filed, it's too early to tell whether the court system would consolidate them. PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, has been linked to kidney and testicular cancers, as well as high blood pressure and cholesterol and thyroid problems. It turned up in the Hoosick Falls municipal water supply and numerous private wells. Saint-Gobain and Honeywell in June signed consent orders with the state which hold them responsible for contamination. Donavan lives with an illness that "continues to significantly hamper and restrict his daily activities and limit life's pleasures," according to the complaint. He moved to the village in 1992 and lived in a home served by public water, according to the complaint. He met his future wife Sue, who owned and operated the Falls Diner on Route 22. From 1997 to 2014, he regularly ate at and drank tap water, which the complaint notes is adjacent to the former Oak Materials site. He began experiencing health problems in the mid 1990s. He was in his 40s in 2000, when he was diagnosed with high cholesterol. He was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis which led him to need to change his diet habits. He suffered a severe reaction to medication at one point in 2015. Since February, residents have brought forward four class action lawsuits against Saint-Gobain and Honeywell. Competing motions by plaintiffs were filed to consolidate the cases and appoint law firms to interim class counsel. In his order on July 27, Judge Stewart wrote the Weitz-Faraci group has been retained by the most individuals, worked closely with the community, and highlighted past experience with groundwater contamination. A fifth case that the court also deemed related was not part of Stewart's order. A complaint filed by Couch White, LLP for Hoosick Falls Associates, an entity connected with the local Tops Friendly Market, seeks $2.1 million for loss of value to the property on Route 22. Judge Stewart notes in his order that a motion to remand the case to trial court is pending. SAMSUNG: Faces Class Action Over Defective Remote Controls ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Samsung, one of the world's largest makers of televisions and other electronics, has been hit with a class action lawsuit over allegedly defective remote controls for its smart TVs, centered on claims the remotes can overheat and cause the AA batteries inside to leak potentially dangerous "battery juice." On July 25, plaintiff Kim Sherwin, identified in the complaint only as a resident of Illinois, filed her complaint in Chicago federal court against Samsung Electronics America Inc., a New Jersey based U.S. affiliate of the Korean international electronics maker. Ms. Sherwin is represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of Edelson PC, of Chicago, and attorney Stefan Coleman, of Miami, Fla. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Sherwin purchased a 55-inch Samsung "Smart TV" in 2012 for more than $1,600. The television purchased included a special Bluetooth-enabled remote control, which featured a Qwerty keyboard on one side, purportedly to help users more easily browse the internet through the Smart TV's web browser. Ms. Sherwin said she "was drawn to the television's Qwerty Remote because its keyboard would her to easily browse the internet on her TV and other apps." However, after only a few days, she said the remote's batteries "quickly depleted," and continued to do so, requiring her to "regularly replace" the batteries "after low to moderate use . . . and even after some time when she did not use the remote at all." About a year later, however, Ms. Sherwin said batteries she installed "began to leak battery acid . . . and the remote stopped working." In 2014, "after using remotes that only gave her basic control" of the TV, Ms. Sherwin said she purchased a replacement Qwerty remote for $144, and over the ensuing months, the same problems recurred, she said. The lawsuit said Ms. Sherwin's experience was not unique, however, as many other consumers have reported on online forums and elsewhere problems with the Qwerty remotes similar to those alleged by Sherman. Some, however, also indicate the remotes have overheated, "sizzled," and one even claimed the battery chamber "exploded." According to the lawsuit, the problems were the result of a design flaw known to Samsung. The lawsuit alleged Samsung should have designed the Qwerty remotes to include a rechargeable battery, more similar to those in use on mobile phones. Instead, the lawsuit alleged Samsung opted to power the device using alkaline batteries knowing the remote would quickly deplete the batteries, requiring consumers to replace them often at their expense. They alleged Samsung also should have known the devices would cause the batteries to overheat, fail and leak. The lawsuit has asked the court to approve a nationwide class of additional claimants, including all those who purchased the Qwerty remote, and special subclasses who purchased the devices in Illinois, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington. The lawsuit alleged Samsung violated consumer fraud laws in each of those states, and was unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks unspecified statutory and punitive damages under the laws and an injunction against Samsung, plus attorney fees and other lawsuit costs. SCHIFF NUTRITION: "Cochoit" Sues Over Restricted Access ------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Cochoit, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., Ganeden Biotech, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:16- cv-01371, (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and such further relief as may be just. Defendants claim their Digestive Advantage Products contain a proprietary bacteria known as Ganaden BC30 that improve and benefit the digestive and immune health of individuals who regularly consume them but cannot prove that its proprietary strain of probiotic bacteria delivers the unique health benefits claimed in its advertising campaign. Ganeden Biotech, Inc. is a privately-held company based in Cleveland, Ohio and sells over-the-counter probiotics in the United States through its Digestive Advantage (R) line brand of products. The brand was sold to Schiff and is currently marketed and distributed by Reckitt Benckiser. Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com SCOTTRADE: Missouri Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Missouri federal judge has dismissed a group of class action lawsuits brought against retail brokerage firm Scottrade over a data breach the company discovered last year. Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah said in her July 12 memorandum and order that the plaintiffs' allegations were too speculative. "Here, although Plaintiffs have alleged that the hackers accessed Plaintiffs' PII (personal identifying information) and used that PII for certain illegal business enterprises, Plaintiffs do not allege any of the PII stolen in the breach has been used to commit any identity theft, fraud, or any other act that has resulted in harm to any plaintiff," Judge Mensah wrote in the 19-page ruling. "Nor do Plaintiffs allege any facts that suggest that the hackers intend to commit identity theft, fraud, or any other act that would result in harm to any plaintiff." The judge said she couldn't determine whether the plaintiffs will suffer harm in the future without engaging in "considerable speculation" about the hackers' possible intentions and future actions. "Plaintiffs will suffer harm only if the hackers actually intend to use Plaintiffs' PII to commit identity theft, fraud, or some other act that might harm Plaintiffs; if the hackers attempt to use the PII to commit such identity theft, fraud, or other act; if they actually succeed in doing so; and if the identity theft, fraud, or other act causes harm to Plaintiffs," she wrote. Judge Mensah said because of the "uncertainty," she couldn't find that the plaintiffs face any harm that is "certainly impending." "This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that more than two years have passed since the original data breach without a single alleged instance of identity theft or fraud involving any of Defendant's customers," the judge noted. The defendant, Scottrade, is a privately owned financial firm headquartered in Town and Country, Missouri. The firm provides brokerage, banking and retirement planning services to individuals and businesses. In October 2015, Scottrade was notified by federal law enforcement officials that a breach in the company's network occurred between late 2013 and early 2014, targeting client names and street addresses. Contact information was the focus on the incident, the firm said in a statement; however, Social Security numbers, email addresses and other sensitive data in the system were accessed. Scottrade said it had no reason to believe that its trading platforms or any client funds were compromised. In response, the firm conducted an internal data forensics investigation into the incident with assistance from a leading computer security firm and took "additional steps" to strengthen its network defenses. "We appreciate and value the trust you place in us," Scottrade said in a statement last year. "We are very sorry that this happened and for any uncertainty or inconvenience this has caused. We know that incidents like these are frustrating and we want to keep you informed about what our forensic investigation has revealed." Soon after the firm announced the data breach, several of its customers filed putative class action lawsuits based on the breach. The first was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, then two in the Missouri federal court, and another in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. All four were later consolidated before Judge Mensah. In February, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged they suffered several categories of injury or harm related to the data breach: (a) increased risk of identity theft and identity fraud; (b) the financial and/or temporal cost of monitoring their credit, monitoring their financial accounts, and mitigating their damages; (c) failure to receive the full benefit of their bargain as a result of receiving brokerage and financial services that were less valuable than what they paid for; (d) deprivation in the value of their personal information; and (e) invasion of privacy and breach of the confidentiality of their personal information. Scottrade, in response, argued that none of the alleged harms constituted an injury in fact that is "actual" or "imminent." The firm argued that the majority of courts faced with similar allegations have found such alleged harms too speculative or abstract to satisfy the injury in fact requirement. Judge Mensah agreed, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA. The Supreme Court dismissed the case by following the federal government's argument that "the claims of the challengers that they were likely to be targets of surveillance were based too much on speculation and on a predicted chain of events that might never occur, so they could not satisfy the constitutional requirement for being allowed to sue." "Respondents cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. The Scottrade plaintiffs argued that instead of relying on Clapper and similar cases, the federal court should rely on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group LLC. The federal appeals court, in its July 2015 ruling, found that the risk of harm to the 300,000-plus people whose credit card numbers were exposed as a result of a 2014 data breach suffered by Neiman Marcus was "very real and immediate." But Judge Mensah wasn't buying it. "The 9,200 fraudulent charges in Remijas demonstrated that the hackers in that case intended to use, were capable of using, and were actually using the stolen data to create fraudulent credit card charges as to some cardholders, which significantly increased the likelihood that they intended to do the same with regard to the remaining cardholders and would be capable of doing so," the judge wrote. "That fact distinguishes Remijas from the instant case, in which more than two years have passed with no incidents of identity theft or other actual harm to the individuals whose PII was taken." Judge Mensah dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs can file an amended complaint. SKULLCANDY INC: "Bernicke" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------ Karen L. Bernicke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S. Hoby Darling, Scott Olivet, Greg Warnock, Rick Alden, Doug Collier, Jeff Kearl, Heidi O'Neill, Jason Hodell, Skullcandy, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02210 (D. Utah, July 26, 2016), seeks to enjoining, preliminarily and permanently, the proposed merger and/or rescinding if consummated, rescissory damages, all damages, reasonable attorneys and experts fees under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Skullcandy entered into a Plan of Merger with Incipio LLC, through its affiliate Powder Merger Sub, Inc. to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Skullcandy for $5.75 per share in cash. Defendants allegedly locked up the deal with provisions that preclude other bidders from making competing offers, thus limiting other options and better offers. Bernicke owns shares of common stock of Skullcandy. Skullcandy is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 1441 West Ute Boulevard, Suite 250 Park City, Utah. It produces audio products under two brands: Skullcandy and Astro Gaming. Through the Skullcandy brand, the Company creates music-listening products that fuse music, art, fashion, and sports. Astro Gaming produces audio equipment for the video game industry, such as headsets and other accessories. S. Hoby Darling, Scott Olivet, Greg Warnock, Rick Alden, Doug Collier, Jeff Kearl, Heidi O'Neill and Jason Hodell are members of Skullcandy's board of directors. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Levi, Esq. Michael H. Rosner, Esq. Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 SOUTH LAFOURCHE: Louisiana Appeals Court Vacates Atty. Fee Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Toni M. Higginbotham of the Louisiana Court of Appeals denied all preliminary exceptions and motions filed in the court and vacated that portion of the district court's judgment concerning attorney fees in the case captioned, JASON AND STACEY ADAMS, RICHARD RACKI AND ANGELA RACKI, ERNEST KIGER, SR., LORRAINE CHERAMIE, JOANNE BELLANGER, RAYMOND ORGERON, WAYNE LEE, SR., IJNACE ADAMS, JR., JERRY LEDET, DEBRA CHANDLER, EARLY H. HORTON, RAY LEDET, AND PAMELA GEORGE, v. SOUTH LAFOURCHE LEVEE DISTRICT. 5 CHERS, INC., v. SOUTH LAFOURCHE LEVEE DISTRICT, Case No. 2015 CA 0507, Consolidated With No. 2015 CA 0508 (La. App.). On January 10, 2011, the Board of Commissioners of the South Lafourche Levee District (Levee District) adopted Resolution 11-01 (the Resolution), appropriating a permanent levee servitude that affected 355 tracts of land located on the west bank of the existing levee along Bayou Lafourche. On September 13, 2011, Jason Adams and eleven other landowners affected by the Levee District's appropriation filed a class action lawsuit (hereafter referred to as the Adams class), contending that the amounts paid and/or offered according to the Levee District's appraised/assigned values of all tracts of land were grossly insufficient, and do not reflect the fair market value of the tracts of land. On April 20, 2012, the district court certified the Adams class, defining the class as the owners of 133 tracts and/or those persons with an ownership interest in the land taken who did not cash checks issued by the Levee District. After the trial on the merits for the Adams class action and the 5 Chers lawsuit, the parties submitted post-trial briefs. On November 10, 2014, the district court issued written reasons for judgment, signing a judgment on the same day, and finding in favor of the landowners on the issue of the fair market value compensation for the appropriated servitude affecting the landowners' property. The district court collectively awarded $1,556,378.00 to the Adams class/sub-class (as shown on a spreadsheet attached to the judgment and subject to a credit for payments made to the members of the sub-class) and $40,662.00 to 5 Chers. The Adams class timely filed a "Motion for Partial New Trial on the Issue of the Credit and/or Motion for Partial Amendment of Judgment" on November 21, 2014. The Adams class contended that the spreadsheet attached to the judgment appeared to include checks that had been issued to landowners who ultimately had opted out of the Adams class, as well as one check that exceeded the amount adjudged to be due the landowner. On January 21, 2015, the Adams class filed its own motion for appeal from the November 10, 2014 judgment, which the district court granted on January 28, 2015. The parties in both appeals dispute the amounts of compensation awarded to the landowners and, additionally, the Levee District contends that the attorney fees award is erroneous. In his Order dated June 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/qY1IUz from Leagle.com, Judge Higginbotham concluded that the district court applied the incorrect statute for the attorney fees award in the case and found it necessary to vacate that portion of the district court's judgment concerning attorney fees, and remanded the matter for a hearing so that evidence of reasonable attorney fees actually incurred by the landowners can be considered by the district court before attorney fees are awarded. All costs of the appeal in the amount of $10,663.38 are assessed to the South Lafourche Levee District. Jason Adams, et al. are represented by: George B. Recile, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 Tel:(504) 217 -2006 5 Chers, Inc. is represented by: Jack E. Chappuis, Jr., Esq. Francis J. Lobrano, Esq. W. Allen Schafer, Esq. BELLE CHASSE 147 Keating Dr Belle Chasse, LA 70037-1629 Plaquemines Parish Tel: (504) 433-3100 South Lafourche Levee District is represented by Loulan J. Pitre, Jr., Esq. -- loulan.pitre@kellyhart.com -- Aimee Williams Hebert, Esq. -- aimee.hebert@kellyhart.com -- and Jane A. Jackson, Esq. -- attorneyjackson@gmail.com -- LAW OFFICE OF LISA J. JACKSON STATE STREET: Settles Foreign Exchange Cases for $530 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Healy, writing for Boston Globe, reports that State Street Corp. will pay $530 million to settle years of regulatory investigations and private lawsuits alleging that it overcharged pensions, mutual funds, and other clients on foreign currency trades. Under an agreement with federal authorities announced on July 26, the Boston-based financial services giant will pay $167.4 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission and $155 million to the Department of Justice, as well as $50 million to pension clients. The payouts are aimed at concluding investigations that State Street has faced since 2009, when Wall Street whistle-blower Harry Markopolos filed a lawsuit on behalf of the nation's largest public pension funds, in California. He later filed additional lawsuits in Massachusetts and around the country. "Mutual funds and other registered investment companies should not face overreaching by the very banks hired to safeguard their assets," Paul G. Levenson, director of the SEC's Boston regional office, said in a statement. State Street said it was settling the cases because "matters of this nature can drain both time and resources." The agreements still need approval from a federal court. The company said it had previously set aside reserves to cover the costs of litigation and settlement payouts. It also reserved funds to pay an additional $147.6 million to resolve private class-action lawsuits filed by customers over the same issues, the company said. State Street was scheduled to release its quarterly earnings on July 27. The alleged misconduct took place from 1998 to 2009. A large custody bank with major investment clients around the world, State Street admitted to the US attorney that, despite promising to get customers the best possible currency trades, it had hidden mark- ups, which boosted its profits. "State Street's custody clients, many of whom were public pension funds, financial institutions, and non-profit organizations, had a right to expect that State Street would execute transactions in an honest and forthright manner," US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said in a statement. Instead, she said, the company reaped "substantial profits" at the expense of its custody clients. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. last year agreed to pay $714 million to settle the government's foreign exchange probes, as well as private lawsuits. Mr. Markopolos will earn whistle-blower's fees in the case. This was his first major case after he tried repeatedly to alert authorities to the Bernard Madoff swindle. SUMMIT ENTERTAIMENT: "Pawelsky" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- ALYSSA PAWELSKY, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SUMMIT ENTERTAIMENT CORP. d/b/a GENTLEMENS QUARTERS, and PHILLIP TRICOLA, and/or any other affiliated entities, the Defendants, Case No. 603315/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained tips, and improperly withheld wages, pursuant to the New York Labor Law. Beginning May 2009, the Defendants have failed to provide the statutory minimum hourly wage to its entertainment and service employees. The Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment under the name Gentlemens Quarters. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 T & B MANAGEMENT: Faces "Chavez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA CHAVEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. T & B MANAGEMENT, LLC and T & B CONCEPTS OF HICKORY, LLC, each d/b/a HICKORY TAVERN, Case 1:16-cv-01019 (M.D.N.C., August 1, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Hickory Tavern Defendants individually and/or collectively operate and manage approximately 23 casual dining "sports bar" restaurants in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama, including a location in Winston Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul R. Dickinson Jr., Esq. LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC One Southpark Center 6060 Piedmont Row Drive South, Suite 140 Charlotte, NC 28287 Phone: 704-347-8990 Fax: 704-347-8929 E-mail: pauldickinson@lewis-roberts.com - and - James A. Roberts III, Esq. LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC 3700 Glenwood Ave., Suite 410 P.O. Box 17529 Raleigh, NC 27619-7529 Phone: 919-981-0191 Fax: 919-981-0199 E-mail: jimroberts@lewis-roberts.com TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- VAIBHAV DOSHI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JODIE POPE MORRISON, and LEE H. KALOWSKI, Case 1:16-cv-06106 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016), was filed on behalf of purchasers of Tokai securities between June 24, 2015 and July 25, 2016, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act. TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other hormonally-driven diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste. 1404 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: 800-977-7401 Fax: 800-536-0065 E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com TOWERJAZZ: Court Approves Voluntary Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------- TowerJazz, the global specialty foundry leader, on July 28 announced the dismissal of the securities action filed earlier this year in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, following the plaintiffs request for voluntary dismissal. There were no settlement payments or any other considerations involved in the withdrawal and dismissal of the lawsuit. The Company will not bear any financial costs since all legal and other relevant expenses are covered by its insurance policy. The company has and will continue its focus on shareholder value through smart business growth and commensurate financial performance. About TowerJazz Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (NASDAQ: TSEM, TASE:TSEM) -- http://www.towerjazz-- and its fully owned U.S. subsidiaries Jazz Semiconductor, Inc. and TowerJazz Texas Inc., operate collectively under the brand name TowerJazz, the global specialty foundry leader. TowerJazz manufactures integrated circuits, offering a broad range of customizable process technologies including: SiGe, BiCMOS, mixed-signal/CMOS, RF CMOS, CMOS image sensor, integrated power management (BCD and 700V), and MEMS. TowerJazz also provides a world-class design enablement platform for a quick and accurate design cycle as well as Transfer Optimization and development Process Services (TOPS) to IDMs and fabless companies that need to expand capacity. To provide multi-fab sourcing and extended capacity for its customers, TowerJazz operates two manufacturing facilities in Israel (150mm and 200mm), two in the U.S. (200mm) and three additional facilities in Japan (two 200mm and one 300mm) through TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co. (TPSCo), established with Panasonic Corporation of which TowerJazz has the majority holding. Through TPSCo, TowerJazz provides leading edge 45nm CMOS, 65nm RF CMOS and 65nm 1.12um pixel technologies, including the most advanced image sensor technologies. TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Byles" Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MACKIE R. BYLES, MACKIE W. BYLES, ROBERT HOWARD, DAVID GANN, and BON SCOTT MORRIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, JEFFERY COLWELL and JOHN RATLIFF, Case No. 7:16-cv-00283-RAJ (W.D. Tex., July 28, 2016), is brought to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Transglobal Services, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Texas. Transglobal is a full service field service provider in the energy industry. Transglobal primarily provides surveying, right of way and seismic services to oil and gas producers. Messrs. Colwell and Ratliff are the owners and the primary decision-makers of Transglobal. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com TUCKER ENERGY: "Headrick" Suit Seeks Compensation, Reinstatement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Headrick, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Tucker Energy Services, Inc. and Tucker Energy Services U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv- 749 (W.D. Tex., July 25, 2016), seeks overtime wages, monetary, liquidated damages, civil penalties, prejudgment interests, all costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting these claims and such further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Tucker Energy Services, Inc. and Tucker Energy Services U.S.A. are Texas corporations and licensed to do business in the States of Texas and Oklahoma with offices at 450 Gears, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77067. It operates, maintains, set-ups, disassembles and repairs equipment at oil wells. Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com US BANCORP: Calif. Appeals Court Won't Send Case to Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Associate Justice Maria P. Rivera of the California Court of Appeals affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration of the individual claims of plaintiff Scott Williams in the case captioned, SCOTT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. U.S. BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. A141199 (Cal. App.). Williams became employed by USBI as a financial consultant in May 2007. Williams filed a class action complaint in the present action on April 23, 2010 against USBI in the San Francisco Superior Court, alleging causes of action for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business expenses, wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, and unlawful business practices. As amended, the complaint proposed two subclasses: (1) the "Unpaid Wages Subclass," defined as "All commission paid employees who worked for Defendants in California from May 9, 2008 until the date of certification," and (2) the "Unreimbursed Business Expenses Subclass," defined as "All employees of Defendants who paid for business-related expenses, including expenses for assistants, client or prospect beverages or meals, or cell phone expenses, in California from May 9, 2008 until the date of certification." USBI demanded arbitration of Williams's individual claims holding that Williams had signed at the outset of his employment with USBI, which included an agreement "to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise between you and your firm, or a customer, or any other person, that is required to be arbitrated under the rules of the self-regulatory organizations with which you are registering." The trial court denied USBI's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the class complaint holding that Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (FINRA) Rule 13204(d) prohibits the enforcement of an arbitration agreement with respect to any claim that is the subject of a putative class action until there is a determination of class certification made. On appeal, USBI contends the trial court erred in denying its motion to compel arbitration. According to USBI, the issue of the propriety of class certification had already been resolved in the Burakoff action, to which Williams was a party, and Williams is barred by principles of collateral estoppel from re-litigating the issue. In her Order dated June 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/6YgBuS from Leagle.com, Judge Rivera held that the Amended Complaint provides numerous factual allegations sufficient to support a plausible claim of willfulness. As to the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply, George Mason has failed to demonstrate a need for a sur-reply because the parties have exhaustively briefed the issue, thereby providing George Mason with a fair opportunity to contest Plaintiffs' claims. VIACOM INC: Engineers Pension Fund Files Lawsuit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 478 PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SUMNER M. REDSTONE, SHARI REDSTONE, VIACOM INC., NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., NAI ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LLC, GEORGE S. ABRAMS, PHILIPPE DAUMAN, THOMAS E. DOOLEY, CRISTIANA FALCONE SORRELL, BLYTHE J. MCGARVIE, DEBORAH NORVILLE, CHARLES E. PHILLIPS, JR., FREDERIC V. SALERNO, WILLIAM SCHWARTZ, NICOLE SELIGMAN, KENNETH LERER, THOMAS J. MAY, JUDITH MCHALE and RONALD NELSON, Case No. 12612 (Del. Ch., August 1, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported class of holders of shares of Class B common stock of Viacom Inc. Viacom Inc. is a "global media brand" company that operates through two segments, Media Networks and Filmed Entertainment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti Jr., Esq. Elizabeth M. McGeever, Esq. Corinne Elise Amato, Esq. PRICKETT JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 888-6500 - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. David J. MacIsaac, Esq. BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP 1251 Avenue of Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 VIACOM INC: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Intrusion Claim --------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes of the Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of most of the plaintiffs' claims, vacated its dismissal of the claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom, and remanded the case for further proceedings in the case captioned, IN RE: NICKELODEON CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION. A.V.; C.A.F.; C.T.F.; M.P.; T.P.; K.T.; N.J.; T.M.; STEPHANIE FRYAR, Appellants, Case No. 15-1441 (3rd Cir.). Defendant Viacom owns the children's television station Nickelodeon. It also operates Nick.com, a website geared towards children that offers streaming videos and interactive games. A child registers to use Nick.com by signing up for an account and choosing a username and password. The plaintiffs allege that Viacom and Google unlawfully used cookies to track children's web browsing and video-watching habits on Viacom's websites. They claim that the defendants collected information about children in at least four ways in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, and one for invasion of privacy under New Jersey law. In June of 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred six privacy-related suits against Viacom and Google to the District of New Jersey for consolidation. The plaintiffs in these cases seek to represent two classes. The first is a class of "all children under the age of 13 in the United States who visited the website Nick.com and had Internet cookies that tracked their communications placed on their computing devices by Viacom and Google." The second is a class of "all children under the age of 13 in the United States who were registered users of Nick.com and who engaged with one or more video materials on such site, and who had their video viewing histories knowingly disclosed by Viacom to Google." Shortly after transfer to the District of New Jersey, the plaintiffs filed their first consolidated complaint. It raised six claims, including violations of (i) the Wiretap Act, (ii) the Stored Communications Act, (iii) the California Invasion of Privacy Act, (iv) the Video Privacy Protection Act, (v) the New Jersey Computer Related Offenses Act, and (vi) a claim under New Jersey common law for intrusion upon seclusion. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims, three of them with prejudice. The District Court nonetheless permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint revising their claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act, the New Jersey Computer Related Offenses Act, and for intrusion upon seclusion. The plaintiffs did so, the defendants again moved to dismiss, and the District Court dismissed the case in its entirety. On appeal, Plaintiffs maintaining they timely filed their complaint and adequately complied with the delayed discovery rule. In his Opinion and Order dated June 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/8Yi4Tg from Leagle.com, Judge Fuentes affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims because the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act and the definition of personally identifiable information in the Act does not extend to the kind of static digital identifiers allegedly disclosed by Viacom to Google except the plaintiffs' claim against Viacom for intrusion upon seclusion because the plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Viacom collected personal information about children despite its promise not to do so and its conduct in breach of its promise was highly offensive under New Jersey law. Viacom, Inc. is represented by Seth J. Lapidow, Esq. -- Lapidow@BlankRome.com -- and Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq. -- Orlofsky@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP Appellee Google, Inc. is represented by Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq. -- jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com -- and Joshua N. Howley, Esq. -- jhowley@sillscummis.com -- SILLS, CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Target of US-Style Class Action Bill in Korea ------------------------------------------------------------ Kim Jae-won, writing for Korea Times, reports that Rep. Park Young-sun of the Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK) submitted a U.S.-style class action bill, targeting German automaker Volkswagen for refusing to compensate local customers over its emissions cheating scandal, the four-term lawmaker said on July 27. The journalist-turned-politician said that it is urgent to adopt a class action bill with no limits here so consumers may receive full compensation from irresponsible companies. Forty-six legislators, including Park, signed the bill. A class action suit is a type of lawsuit where the plaintiff is a group of people represented collectively by a member of that group. It allows the claims of all plaintiffs to be resolved in a single proceeding, providing all customers the same compensation. It originated in the U.S. in 1938 and is predominant there. In Korea, it was introduced in 2005, but was limited to the securities business only. "Volkswagen agreed to pay 17.5 trillion won in compensation to customers in the U.S., where the class action suit is well- developed," said Rep. Park in a press conference at the National Assembly. "But the company has no plans to compensate our citizens and seeks to avoid making payments by hiring big local law firms." In June, Volkswagen settled with the U.S. government to pay as much as $15.3 billion after admitting it cheated for years on diesel emissions tests. The carmaker agreed to buy back vehicles from consumers and provide funding that could benefit creators of cleaner technologies. Ms. Park's remarks come amid the Korean government's moves to nullify certification for 79 vehicle models of Audi Volkswagen Korea, which allegedly manipulated documents on the cars' noise level, fuel efficiency and emissions. But the carmaker said that it made some mistakes in the process of drafting relevant reports during a hearing hosted by the environment ministry, denying it intentionally manipulated the documents. Legal experts welcomed the bill saying the country needs to strengthen punishment for companies causing societal damage intentionally. "A class action should come with punitive damages which impose much bigger compensation on companies neglecting their duties to protect customers," said Bae Keum-ja, a veteran attorney who has led lawsuits against KT&G over the harmfulness of cigarettes. "If a class action is available in all industries, it can apply to manufacturers of toxic humidifier disinfectants which are suspected of ignoring the dangers of their products intentionally." Reckitt Benckiser is under investigation by the prosecution as the British-based firm is accused of selling its toxic humidifier disinfectant under the brand name of Oxy which has been connected with more than 100 deaths here. A special National Assembly committee on the case also investigated Reckitt Benckiser's local unit and Korean manufacturers SK Chemical and Aekyung for their alleged wrongdoings in the scandal. Representatives of Volkswagen Korea did not respond to repeated calls from The Korea Times for comments over the class action bill. VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Class Settlement, Plan of Allocation Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re Vocera Communications, Inc., Securities Litigation, Master File No.3: 13-cv-03567 EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed class action Settlement and approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation for the net proceeds of the Settlement. A copy of the Court's July 29, 2016 Order is available at https://is.gd/ubJ4cN from Leagle.com. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------- Kartikay Mehrotra and Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News, report that Volkswagen AG's settlements to get 482,000 emissions-cheating diesel cars off U.S. roads won a preliminary go-ahead from a federal judge, clearing a path for Germany's largest automaker around the biggest obstacle to recovery from the scandal. The plan for buybacks and a possible fix covers car owners, the U.S. government and 44 states and will cost the company about $15.3 billion if the agreements are fully adopted. That includes VW's $603 million accord with the states that isn't part of the settlement before U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. "An enormous effort has been devoted to achieving a series of goals," Judge Breyer said on July 26 in court, where he set a final approval hearing for Oct. 18. "I think from what I've seen, those goals have been achieved, at least preliminarily." Approval of the agreement advances Volkswagen's push to resolve more than 1,000 U.S. lawsuits springing from the diesel-cheating scandal. The settlement resolves claims over VW and Audi models made since 2009 with 2.0-liter engines, but still leaves the automaker without an agreement for 82,000 3.0-liter diesel engines. The company also faces additional state lawsuits by attorneys general in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland that could add billions of dollars to the carmakers' tab. The pact eats up almost all of the 16.2 billion euros ($17.8 billion) the company set aside last year to cover the cost of the scandal worldwide. In addition to investor class actions in the U.S. and lawsuits in Germany and South Korea, the company faces criminal probes in all three countries. The German carmaker took a 2.2 billion-euro charge in the second quarter, chiefly related to legal risks in the U.S. Volkswagen rose 2.3 percent percent to 127.65 euros as of 9:05 a.m. in Frankfurt trading. That pared the stock's decline since the scandal emerged in September to 21 percent, valuing the German manufacturer at 66.3 billion euros. 'Fair, Reasonable' "The parties believe that the proposed settlement program will provide a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution for affected Volkswagen and Audi customers," VW said in a statement. The settlement before Breyer includes $10 billion for buybacks, plus $4.7 billion in government penalties and remediation. With or without a fix, there's nothing to stop owners in some states from driving the polluting cars if they don't like the buyback terms. Drivers who participate in the deal will get at least $5,100 each as part of a buyback program that will begin in October and run through June 30, 2019, the deadline for the company to get 85 percent of cars recalled. If it fails to reach that benchmark, it will have to pay $85 million more into an environmental mitigation trust for each percentage point of the shortfall. It will also have to pay an additional $13.5 million into the trust for each percentage point it falls below the target in California. Opt-Out With the July 26 decision, car owners not satisfied with the settlement can now file objections with the court. Those who want to fight for their claim separately can opt out of the agreement. Few opt-outs are expected and those that do occur won't hinder the settlement for others, said Steve Berman, a plaintiff's attorney in the case who represents almost 14,000 VW owners. "There are always objections and no settlement is 100 percent perfect for all," he said. At least 657 diesel VW owners in Virginia are filing suit against the company in state court, citing Virginia's warranty and consumer protection statutes that offer car owners full refunds and triple the damages, said their attorney, James Feinman. "Virginia law is crystal clear: these vehicles are illegal to operate in Virginia," said Mr. Feinman, who started filing new lawsuits within hours of Judge Breyer approving the settlement. "The whole thing is a fraud in my mind. The EPA has no jurisdiction to declare what's legal in Virginia and this issue has no business being in a district court." Plaintiffs like those in Virginia will likely be a small sample among the 1,057 cases included in the class-action dispute. According to a survey by the online automotive shopping site CarGurus, 68 percent of 410 respondents felt VW's offer was either fair or generous. "It is a good deal for diesel owners and not because VW feels generous," said Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan law professor. "It is because VW could face criminal charges in the U.S. and wants to appear to be cooperative." Elizabeth Cabraser, the lead lawyer for car owners, told the judge on July 26 "the money is a means to an end that cannot be achieved without a number of parties working together, as they have throughout the course of negotiations to accomplish a plan that works together in the real world." Nitrogen Oxide The carmaker has yet to come up with a fix for the cars, which were rigged to meet standards during stationary tests while emitting up to 40 times the allowable limit for nitrogen oxides while out on the road. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board must approve any fix proposed by VW. So, far none of the repairs have met agencies' standards. A Justice Department lawyer told the judge on July 26 that VW is expected in August to submit a new proposal for fixing the 3-liter engines. The models covered by the 2-liter agreement include: the 2013-15 Beetle; 2010-15 Golf; 2009-15 Jetta; 2012-15 Passat; and Audi A3 from 2010-13 and 2015. VW is hiring 250 to 300 people to carry out the settlement requirements, Sharon Nelles, a lawyer for the company, told Breyer. V W will set up a hotline that will be available seven days a week, she said. The case is In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2672, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). VOYA RETIREMENT: "Dezelan" Files ERISA Class Action in Conn. ------------------------------------------------------------ Darlene Dezelan, individually, on behalf of the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 403(b) Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all similarly situated Plans, Plaintiff, v. Voya Retirement Insurance And Annuity Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01251 (D. Conn., July 27, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary and appropriate, appropriate equitable relief, including damages, accounting, surcharge, disgorgement of profits, equitable lien, constructive trust, or other remedy, attorneys' fees and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company is a legal reserve insurance company authorized under the insurance laws of New York. Its principal place of business is Windsor, Connecticut. It sells group annuity contracts to retirement plans. These contracts include Stable Value Funds that periodically credit a certain amount of interest income to retirement plans and the participants in such plans who invest their retirement plan accounts in SVAs. Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan, investing her retirement assets in Stable Value Funds through her Plan. She accuses the Defendant of excessive enrichment derived from the said fund. Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard (ct01601) Craig A. Raabe (ct04116) Christopher M. Barrett IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com craabe@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com WASHINGTON: Court Grants Class Certification in "Teeter" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, B.E. and A.R., on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. DOROTHY F. TEETER, in her official capacity as Director of the Washington State Health Care Authority, Defendant, Case No. C16-0227-JCC (W.D. Wash.). The matter is brought by Washington Medicaid enrollees who have contracted Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and not received medication known as Direct-Acting Antivirals (DAAs) despite the well- documented success rate of DAA treatment. Plaintiffs bring the suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging violation of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (also known as the Medicaid Act). On May 27, 2016 the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the Washington Health Care Authority (WHCA) enjoined from applying its 2015 policy regarding the treatment of the HCV. In tandem with their motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs move the Court to certify their class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of "All individuals who (1) Were, are, or will be enrolled in WHCA's Medicaid Program on or after October 10, 2014;(2) Require, or are expected to require treatment for HCV with Harvoni/ledipasvir-sofosbuvir or other similar DAAs under the current guidelines adopted by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America; and(3) Do not meet the coverage criteria for HCV medication adopted by WHCA, as reflected in Appendix 1 to Plaintiffs' Complaint. " The WHCA argues that class certification is "unnecessary" because the preliminary injunction benefits all class members regardless of whether they are formally certified. Plaintiffs argue, however, that necessity is not a required showing for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). In his Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mJDSJN from Leagle.com, Judge Coughenour held that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate and appointed B.E. and A.R. as class representatives and appoints Richard E. Spoonemore and Eleanor Hamburger of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger, Amy L. Crewdson of Columbia Legal Services, and Kevin Costello of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation as class counsel. B. E. and A. R., Plaintiffs are represented by Amy Louise Crewdson, Esq. -- amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES; Kevin Costello, Esq. -- kcostello@law.harvard.edu -- CENTER FOR HEALTH LAW & POLICY INNOVATION They are also represented by: Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206)223-0303 Dorothy F. Teeter is represented by: Angela D. Coats McCarthy, Esq. Jennifer Smith Meyer, Esq. Nissa Ann Iversen, Esq. WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 Tel: (360) 753-6200 WESTERN WORLD: Calif. App. Affirms Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------- Judge William J. Murray, Jr. of the California Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Western World Insurance Company in the case captioned SYLVIA PORTUGAL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. C067875 (Cal. App.). Plaintiff Sylvia Portugal, as representative of a class of former employees, filed the underlying action against her former employer, Carequest, Inc. dba Real Care, an in-home provider of household services for elderly and disabled persons. Real Care had commercial general liability (CGL) and professional liability insurance through Western World Insurance Company (Western). The underlying action was for unpaid wages, overtime, and penalties. Western declined to defend or indemnify Real Care in the underlying lawsuit, contending that plaintiffs did not have standing under section 11580, subdivision (b)(2), since their lawsuit was not an action based upon bodily injury, death, or property damage and the insurance policies did not cover the employees' claims. Western moved for summary judgment on two alternative grounds: (1) Portugal and the class lacked standing to sue under section 11580 because the claims were not based on bodily injury, death, or property damage; and (2) the lawsuit was for wages and employment benefits, which were not even potentially covered under the insurance policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to Western ruling that Portugal and her class lacked standing under section 11580, because the underlying claims were for wages and employment benefits, which were intangible economic interests, not bodily injury, death, or property damage. The trial court also found that the underlying claims were not covered occurrences under the insurance policies or were expressly excluded. On appeal, Portugal argued triable issues preclude summary judgment. In his Opinion dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/r2MqqO from Leagle.com, Judge Murray, Jr. concluded that Portugal fails to demonstrate that any of her causes of action may fall within the scope of the policy. Moreover, beyond the evidence establishing that Portugal's claims are not covered, Western has conclusively established that all of the claims are excluded. WISCONSIN: Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge James D. Peterson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, motion for recusal and motion for electronic court filing access in the case captioned, ROBERT TATUM, and all similarly situated DOC/CCI Inmates, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS CIMPL, CHRISTINE CHARETTE, KELLY DEFORT, DONNA LENDOWSKI, JACKELINE MALONE, LEPOSAVA MUNNS, KATHY NELSON, KAREN PALIS, TAMMY SYLVESTER, LISA WENINGER, PATRICIA CURLEY, "JOHN" HIGGINBOTHAM, DIANE FREMGREN, JEFFREY KREMERS, SUSAN "B.", ALAN WHITE, SUSAN RAIMER, FRANK REMINGTON, CARLOS ESQUEDA, WILLIAM CONLEY, PETER OPPENEER, "M." HARDIN, and LINDA MUHAMMAD, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-690-JDP (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiff Robert Tatum, a prisoner at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, brought this proposed civil class action alleging that defendants, mostly judges and court employees, including clerks and court reporters, violated his First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in various ways during plaintiff's criminal proceedings and civil actions. In a February 12, 2016, order, the court dismissed the case for plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted concluding that plaintiff's claims against judges and related court employees were barred by absolute judicial immunity, that his claims against various court reporters were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because they would call his conviction into question, and his claim against his mother for taking part in a wide-ranging conspiracy to deprive him of his rights was implausible. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion for an order requiring the Department of Corrections to unblock access to the court's electronic docket. In his Order dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/dEo2Gu from Leagle.com, Judge Peterson concluded that plaintiff does not identify a manifest error in the dismissal order and does not present a compelling reason to consider allowing him access or delving deeper into prison policy regarding electronic court access. WORLD WRESTLING: Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied WWE's motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motions to dismiss the Singleton and McCullough actions in the case captioned, RUSS McCULLOUGH, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough", RYAN SAKODA, and MATTHEW R. WEISE, a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. EVAN SINGLETON and VITO LOGRASSO Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. WILLIAM ALBERT HAYNES III, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT WINDHAM, THOMAS BILLINGTON, JAMES WARE, OREAL PERRAS, and VARIOUS JOHN DOE'S, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-001074 (VLB), 3:15-cv-00425 (VLB), 3:15-cv-01156 (VLB), 3:15-cv-0994 (VLB) (D. Conn.). Plaintiffs in the consolidated action are former wrestlers for World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE), a Connecticut entertainment company which produces televised wrestling programming. Plaintiffs allege that they are either suffering from symptoms of permanent degenerative neurological conditions resulting from traumatic brain injuries sustained during their employment as wrestlers for WWE or are at increased risk of developing such conditions. In its March 21, 2016, memorandum of opinion and accompanying Order (the Opinion), the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that they were injured as a result of WWE's negligence in scripting violent conduct and failing to properly educate, prevent, diagnose and treat them for concussions. The Court held that plaintiffs LoGrasso and Singleton plausibly stated a claim that WWE fraudulently omitted known facts regarding a link between wrestling activity and permanent brain damage resulting from traumatic brain injuries. The Court further found that the fraud claim may not be tolled by the operation of Connecticut's statutes of limitations and repose. The Court thereafter entered an Order dismissing WWE's countersuit against Robert Windham, et al on the basis that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as the Court could not, for the reasons stated in its Opinion, issue a declaration that WWE was not liable on the basis of Connecticut's statute of limitations. The Court denied as moot WWE's motion to discover the identities of the unknown John Doe defendants in Windham. In the motion, WWE argues that the Court misapplied the applicable law and alleged facts in determining that LoGrasso's claims were not time-barred and in finding that Singleton and LoGrasso plausibly stated a claim for fraud by omission. WWE also argues that dismissal of the Windham action was premature and that the stated basis -- failure to state a claim for relief -- was not the basis of the Windham defendants' Motion to Dismiss which argued for dismissal on the sole grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In her Memorandum dated July 21, 2016 available at https://is.gd/S4IQVK from Leagle.com, Judge Bryant granted motion to dismiss the Windham action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the claims against the unknown "John Does" and denied with respect to the claims against the four named defendants. Windham, Billington, Ware and Perras are reinstated as defendants in the consolidated action. Cassandra Frazier and Michelle James are represented by Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. -- erica@mirabellaLLC.com -- MIRABELLA LLC; R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq. -- chrisgil@sidgilreath.com -- GILREATH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC -- Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP They are also represented by: Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW OFFICES 1100 6th Avenue South, Suite 229B, Naples, FL 34102 Tel: (800)934-2921 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is represented by B. John Casey, Esq. -- john.casey@klgates.com -- Christopher M. Verdini, Esq. -- christopher.verdini@klgates.com -- Paul R. Genender, Esq. -- paul.genender@klgates.com -- Stefanie M. Lacy, Esq. -- stephanie.lacy@klgates.com -- Terry Budd, Esq. -- terry.budd@klgates.com -- Curtis B. Krasik, Esq. -- curtis.krasik@klgates.com -- and Jerry S. McDevitt, Esq. -- jerry.mcdevitt@klgates.com -- K&L GATES, LLP; Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Esq. -- gpodesta@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOVITZ, PC -- Jeffrey Mueller, Esq. -- jmueller@daypitney.com -- Jonathan B. Tropp, Esq. -- jtropp@daypitney.com -- and Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. -- tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP John Doe's, Various is represented by: Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW OFFICES 1100 6th Avenue South, Suite 229B Naples, FL 34102 Tel: (800)934-2921 ZUMIES INC: "Bernal" Suit Alleges Unfair Employment Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZUMIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case 1:16-at-00608 (E.D. Cal., August 1, 2016), alleges unlawful and unfair employment practices against Defendants. ZUMIES, INC. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is an online seller of clothing, shoes, accessories, and gear for skateboarding, snowboarding, and surf lifestyles for guys, girls, and kids. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Phone: (818) 991-8080 Fax: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com * IMF Bentham Sponsors UNSW Class Action Research Project --------------------------------------------------------- Emma Ryan, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that an Australian litigation funder has committed $160,000 to a two-year research initiative with UNSW Law. IMF Bentham has announced it has agreed to sponsor the IMF Bentham Class Actions Research Initiative at the UNSW Faculty of Law, which aims to explore and resolve key issues in class action practice throughout the nation. The initiative will examine the operation of class action settlement distribution schemes in Australia and how to achieve finality in class action litigation, with the results of the research to be published on a dedicated website and presented at conferences and seminars for interested parties. "IMF is delighted to be able to support ground-breaking research into practical issues affecting class action litigation in Australia," said Andrew Saker, IMF managing director. "Class actions have emerged as an important means to provide access to justice for consumers and investors. "The initiative will identify practical ways to enhance the operation of the class action regime, and we are pleased that UNSW Law has chosen to collaborate with IMF as its industry partner on this important project." Professor George Williams AO, dean of UNSW Law, thanked IMF for its contribution to the initiative. "UNSW Law is very pleased to collaborate with IMF Bentham on this important initiative," he said. "It matches our aspirations to produce new research on key legal topics and to have an impact on the future of legal practice through partnerships with industry leaders." The initiative will be led by UNSW Law academics Professor Simone Degeling and Associate Professor Michael Legg. Professor Degeling specializes in private law, including equity, trusts, remedies and the law of restitution. Associate Professor Legg specializes in class actions and has written a range of articles on civil and regulatory litigation, class actions and litigation funding in Australia and around the world. ********* 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 * * *