/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160815.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 162 Headlines ACE HOMECARE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice ALL MY SONS: Faces "Rich" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ALLFAST INT'L: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Chavez" Suit Alleges ALLIED NEVADA: Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action ALTORESTAURANTS INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit by Non-Exempt Employees ALTRIA GROUP: Health Care Cost Recovery Suits Pending in Canada ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Sept. 30 ALTRIA GROUP: Retrial in Alaska Case to Begin October 17 ALTRIA GROUP: 2,800 State Court Engle Progeny Cases Pending ALTRIA GROUP: Seven Class Actions Pending in Canada ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Medical Monitoring Class Suit Pending v. PM USA ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on "Lights" Cases ALTRIA GROUP: "Aspinall" Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Begins in "Miner" Class Action ALTRIA GROUP: "Pearson" Parties Settle Individual Claims AMAZON.COM LLC: Settlement with Warehouse Workers Has Initial OK AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Sued in N.J. Over Forced Annual Membership AMERITIES WEST: Treatment Plant Emits Toxic Gas, Suit Says ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit Over Treatment for Eating Disorders AVVO: Suit Over Misappropriation of Names and Likeness Dismissed BACK ON THE BEACH: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Get Meal Break Premiums BANNER HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over June Data Breach BATON ROUGE: Faces Class Suit by Black Lives Matter Members BAYADA HOME: "Reed" Class Suit Seeks Relief Under Pa. Wage Acts BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Barney" Suit Over Pradaxa Promotion BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Carreira" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bedsole" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Boro" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bellah" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) BRIAN LEE: Sued for Not Complying With Property Management Laws C. R. BARD: Class Action Over Composix(R) Kugel(R) Pending C. R. BARD: Claims by 11,390 Plaintiffs Pending C. R. BARD: Settled 2,235 Health Product Claims During 2016 C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 770 Plaintiffs Pending CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Desalinated Water Subsidy CEDARS BUSINESS: Illegally Records Telephone Dialogue, Suit Says CLIENT FIRST: "Mogavero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages COASTLINE METAL: Faces "Castro" Suit Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code COCO NAIL: "Zabala" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss N.J. Class Suit Pending CORELOGIC INC: Brief in "Stevens" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Nov. 7 CREA ENTERPRISE: Faces "Me Ae Song" Suit Over Labor Code Breach CREA ENTERPRISE: "Kim" Suit Alleges Violations of Labor Code CVS HEALTH: Court Dismissed Most State Law Claims in "Corcoran" CYTRX CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports DALLAS CENTRAL: LPF Coppell Files Suit Over Property Appraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: "Mushir" Seeks Trial De Novo DAVID DALEIDEN: 7 Women File Privacy Suit DIRECTV: Faces RICO Class Action by Beauty Salon Owner DIVERSIFIED MACHINE: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Claims DO PRODUCTIONS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims EAGLE MARINE: "O'Neal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages EMCARE OF CALIFORNIA: Violates Labor Code, "Norris" Suit Asserts EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Underwood" Class Suit in Illinois EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sued in Mo. Over Alleged Prescription Slamming FACEBOOK INC: Class C Reclassification Litig. Remains Pending FLORIS CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FRESHPOINT INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GATEWAYS ENERGY: Sued Over Natural Gas Supply Contract Breach GIOVANNI'S ITALIAN: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages GLOBAL PAYMENTS: MOU Reached in Suit Over Heartland Deal HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Faces St. Paul Teachers' Suit in N.Y. HONDA MOTOR: Hands-Free Car Phones Defective, Suit Says HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Watkins" Suit in N.D. Ohio HYUNDAI: Settlement in Suit Over Santa Fe SUVs Has Initial OK IBEX CONSTRUCTION: Sued by React Industries Over $42K+ Debt IMAGE LINE: Faces "Thomas" Suit in District of Utah INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Suits by SIBL Depositors INGRAM MICRO: Scheiner Refiled Complaint in Del. Chancery Court ITC HOLDINGS: Court Eyes March 2017 Completion of Discovery J&R SCHUGEL: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims JDK MANAGEMENT: "Sexton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT KIMBERLY-CLARK: Sold Defective Microcool Medical Gowns, Suit Says L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Parties in EoTech Suits Agreed to Mediation L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Motion Pending in Securities Suit L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 401(k) Plan Class Action Filed LAGOON LINENS: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LIVE NATION: Accrued $16.6MM for Remaining Settlement Costs MARTHA STEWART: Sells Subscribers Data, Class Suit Says MASTERCARD INC: Aug. 2016 Status Conference in Interchange Suit MASTERCARD INC: Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta Suits Suspended MASTERCARD INC: Supreme Court to Hear ATM Case Arguments in Oct. MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Dismiss Liability Shift Case Due August MDL 1917: Court Approves $158 Million in Legal Fees METHODIST HOSPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Nurses MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Tsisin" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York MORAN TOWING: "Turnage" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MV TRANSPORTATION: Violates FLSA OT Provision, "Jordan" Suit Says NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Declines to Dismiss Scholarship Case NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Furniss" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation NATURAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Securities Action Remains Pending NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Park Rangers' Class Suit NINTENDO: Homeowners Sue Over "Pokemon Go" Game NORTHERN TRUST: $46.5MM Charge Recorded Over ERISA Suit Deal NPAS INC: Faces "Riezes" Suit in Eastern District New York NPC INTERNATIONAL: "Gregorius" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages OKLAHOMA: "Dennis" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to N.D. Oklahoma PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Court Permits Filing of Wage Class, PAGA Claims PANERA BREAD: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending PHILIP MORRIS: Opposed Motion for New Trial in "Larsen" Case PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "O'Brien" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey PSCU INC: "Davis" Labor Suit Transferred from Mich. to Fla. Court QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Sue in Pennsylvania Over Merger QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Sue in Delaware Over Merger QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Jeweltex Stockholder Suit QUAKER OATS: Consumer Class Suits Moved to California RAVAGH PERSIAN: "Rivera-Raymundo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT RIAL DE MINAS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RIT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Criminal Report Can't Be Used in Class Suit SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Narrows Claims in "Anderson" Suit SEI INVESTMENTS: Asks Court to Clarify Class Definition SOLARCITY CORP: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Complaint SONS ELECTRICAL: Faces Suit by Foremen, Apprentices Under NYLL SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Class Suit v. IOS et al. Stayed SUPERVALU INC: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Suit Over C&S Deal SUPERVALU INC: Cross-Appeal Filed in Customer Data Breach Suit SUTTLES LOGGING: "Hinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TD BANK: "Carberry" Suit in N.J. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Faces Canyon Capital Suit Over IPO TEXAS: Faces Inmates' Suit Over Mental Health Service TIVO: Shareholders Sue Over Sale to Rovi TOWN SPORTS: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Labbe" Suit TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Bid for Access to Deposition Tapes Denied TWO MEN: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages U.S. SMOKELESS: Paid $240,000 to Settle Claims UBER TECH: Arbitration Clause Invalid, Judge Says UNITED CEREBRAL: "Ponce" Suit Alleges Labor Laws Violations WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Court Approval of Settlement WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Sumpter Filed Appeal in 6th Circuit WELLS LAND: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WEST BANCORPORATION: June 2017 Trial Date Set in Class Action WORLD WRESTLING: Provides Update on Brain Injuries-Related Suits ********* ACE HOMECARE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- Toni Molina, Erica Tovar, Tara Ward, Ly Nguyen, and Consuelo Powell, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Ace Homecare LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-02214-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla., August 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide at least 60 days' advance notice of termination in violation of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Ace Homecare LLC operates a home health care agency with several locations in the State of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Justice, Esq. BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS 201 S. Westland Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 254-1777 Facsimile: (813) 254-3999 E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com ALL MY SONS: Faces "Rich" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dwight Rich, Keith Matyasovszky, Terrance Durant, Joshua Smith, and Jason Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All My Sons Moving & Storage of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01284 (D. Conn., July 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. All My Sons Moving & Storage of Connecticut, Inc. owns and operates a moving company located in Waterbury, CT 06708. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Phelan, Esq. MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C. 80 Ferry Blvd., Suite 216 Stratford, CT 06615 Telephone: (203) 873-0240 E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com ALLFAST INT'L: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Chavez" Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- VIRGINIA CHAVEZ as an individual and on behalf all others similarly situated v. ALLFAST INTERNATIONAL SALES CORP., a California Corporation; ALLFAST FASTENING SYSTEMS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES I through 100, Case No. BC629494 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wage violations, meal period violations, and other violations. The Defendants manufacture solid & blind rivets, blind bolts, and provide tooling for the aerospace industry. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com ALLIED NEVADA: Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Falling gold prices and other factors, not fraud, caused Allied Nevada Gold Corp. shares prices to fall, a federal judge in Las Vegas ruled August 8, dismissing without prejudice a shareholder class action. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of investors who purchased stock in Defendant Allied Nevada Gold Corporation ("Allied") between January 18, 2013, and August 5, 2013. One of Allied Nevada's central operations recovers gold and silver from oxide ores using a technique ("heap leaching") that extracts ore from an open pit, crushes it, and places it on impermeable leach pads where the ore is doused with a weak cyanide solution that dissolves the gold from the ore. One of the company's three leach pads, the Lewis leach pad, was beset with operational difficulties between January 18, 2013, and August 5, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Allied issued a variety of press releases and financial information2 during the Class Period and also conducted several conference calls from January to May that Plaintiffs allege contained a number of materially false and misleading statements concerning the operations of the Lewis leach pad, Allied's cash position and access to capital, the expansion of the Hycroft mine, and Allied's favorable financial guidance. Plaintiffs then allege that the truth was slowly revealed from May until August, beginning with Allied's April 30, 2013 press release; Form 10-Q; and May 1, 2013 conference call, which announced Allied's planned secondary public offering ("SPO"). On May 2, 2013, Allied filed an automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC"). On May 9, 2013, Allied filed an amendment to the registration statement, offering to sell fourteen million shares of Allied stock in a SPO. On May 17, 2013, Allied announced the closing of its sale of fourteen million shares in the SPO at $10.75 per share. On July 8 and 22, 2013, Allied released two further press releases which Plaintiffs contend further exposed the truth. On August 6, 2013, Allied issued a press release and held a conference call in which Plaintiffs contend the truth was finally completely exposed. Allied announced that its production costs had increased dramatically and would continue to rise because of the operating defects at the Lewis leach pad. Allied also stated that it would indefinitely suspend its planned expansion as a result of the Lewis leach pad deficiencies. Following this announcement, Allied's stock dropped significantly, from $5.90 per share at the close of trading on August 5, to $3.73 per share at the close of trading on August 7. A consolidated complaint alleged two causes of action: (1) Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and (2) Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On September 29, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a request for judicial notice. On December 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss. On February 1, 2016, Defendants filed a reply. A copy of the Court's Aug. 8 Order is available at http://goo.gl/kLrSm1from Leagle.com. The case is captioned, IN RE ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES LITIGATION, 3:14-CV-00175-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.). ALTORESTAURANTS INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit by Non-Exempt Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOELIA GARCIA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTORESTAURANTS, INC. dba VALENTINO'S PIZZA, BASSO, INC. dba VALENTINO'S PIZZA, a California Corporation; VALENTINO LUBRANO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 30; inclusive, CASE No. BC 629540 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, August 4, 2016), was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and all individuals who hold or held positions as non-exempt employees who are employed by, or were formerly employed by any of the Defendants within the State of California in the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Defendants operate Valentino's Pizza, a pizza restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq. Michael G. Jacob, Esq. KESLUK SILVERSTEIN & JACOB, P.C. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411 Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309 Phone: (310) 273-3180 Fax: (310) 273-6137 E-mail: dsilverstein@califomialaborlawattorney.com mjacob@californialaborlawattorney.com ALTRIA GROUP: Health Care Cost Recovery Suits Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 as of July 22, 2016, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") is a named defendant in 10 health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces. ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 as of July 22, 2016, seven Engle progeny cases are set for trial through September 30, 2016. There is one "Lights/Ultra Lights" class action and no medical monitoring cases or individual smoking and health cases against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") set for trial during this period. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are subject to change. ALTRIA GROUP: Retrial in Alaska Case to Begin October 17 -------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 retrial in a lawsuit in Alaska is scheduled to begin October 17, 2016. Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts have been returned in 61 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights" and health care cost recovery cases in which Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 41 of the 61 cases. These 41 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for reconsideration. In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to reassess whether to grant a new trial. In March 2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM USA filed a petition for review of that order with the Alaska Supreme Court, which the court denied in July 2016. The retrial currently is scheduled to begin October 17, 2016. Of the 20 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 17 have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois (Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006. As of July 22, 2016, 100 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 56 verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs; 42 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA. Two verdicts that were initially returned in favor of plaintiff were reversed on appeal. One was remanded for a new trial; the other is now subject to en banc review in the appellate court. ALTRIA GROUP: 2,800 State Court Engle Progeny Cases Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision, expired in January 2008. As of July 22, 2016, approximately 2,800 state court cases were pending against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 3,600 state court plaintiffs. Because of a number of factors, including, but not limited to, docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates. While the Federal Engle Agreement resolved nearly all Engle progeny cases pending in federal court, as of July 22, 2016, approximately 14 cases were pending against PM USA in federal court representing the cases excluded from that agreement. ALTRIA GROUP: Seven Class Actions Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 as of July 22, 2016, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well. Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 60 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). As of July 22, 2016, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes. ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Medical Monitoring Class Suit Pending v. PM USA --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 one medical monitoring class action is currently pending against Philip Morris USA Inc. In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan sought permission from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded, which the court denied. The future defense of these cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical standards and practice. One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be determined at trial. The case was remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with a cost in excess of $190 million. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. In July 2015, both parties filed various motions, including motions for partial summary judgment and to exclude certain evidence. In October 2015, the district court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment holding that e-vapor products may not be deemed an alternative design for ordinary cigarettes. In February 2016, the trial court jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA on the warranty claim. In March 2016, PM USA filed a motion for judgment on plaintiffs' Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act claim based on the jury's verdict, which the court denied in April 2016, ruling that it will function as the finder of fact with respect to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on "Lights" Cases --------------------------------------- Altria 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 as of July 22, 2016, 20 courts in 21 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in the Price case. See The Price Case below for further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice in August 2009, but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation. In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October 2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation. ALTRIA GROUP: "Aspinall" Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 settlement in the Aspinall action is subject to further hearings and final approval of the court. In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied. In August 2015, the trial court denied various pre-trial motions filed by PM USA, including a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs have no proof of injury. Trial began in October 2015 and concluded in November 2015. In December 2015, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. In February 2016, the trial court issued its "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," finding that (1) PM USA violated Massachusetts consumer protection laws in marketing Marlboro "Lights" and (2) plaintiffs proved that class members were economically injured, but did not prove a specific measure of damages. As a result, the court awarded statutory damages of $25 per class member, for a total of $4.9 million, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In April 2016, the parties agreed to settle all claims for approximately $32 million. The agreement is subject to approval by the court. In the first quarter of 2016, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $32 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs. In May 2016, PM USA paid approximately $32 million to plaintiffs' escrow agent. The settlement is subject to further hearings and final approval of the court. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Begins in "Miner" Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 trial was scheduled to begin on August 2, 2016, in the "Miner" class action lawsuit. In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL proceeding. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights and Marlboro Ultra Lights for personal consumption in Arkansas. Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. In February 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's class certification order. In May 2015, PM USA filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to foreclose any recovery for cigarette purchases prior to 1999, when a private right of action was added to the consumer protection statute under which plaintiffs are suing. The trial court denied the motion in July 2015. In June 2016, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment to limit any damages claimed by the plaintiffs' class to purchases made prior to May 2003. Trial was scheduled to begin on August 2, 2016. ALTRIA GROUP: "Pearson" Parties Settle Individual Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Altria 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 parties in the Pearson lawsuit have agreed to settle plaintiffs' individual claims for an aggregate amount of $30,000 and, pursuant to that settlement, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal. In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a class. In February 2007, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's motion based on express preemption under the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA"), and plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals. In June 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of class certification and remanded to the trial court for further consideration of class certification. In July 2013, PM USA filed a petition for reconsideration with the Oregon Court of Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA filed its petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court in October 2013, which the court accepted in January 2014. In October 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification, thereby reversing the decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the Oregon Supreme Court, which the court denied. In December 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court entered its judgment denying class certification and remanding the claims of the individual plaintiffs for further proceedings. In April 2016, the parties agreed to settle plaintiffs' individual claims for an aggregate amount of $30,000 and, pursuant to that settlement, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice with the Circuit Court of Multnomah County. AMAZON.COM LLC: Settlement with Warehouse Workers Has Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Francisco preliminarily approved a $600,000 settlement of warehouse workers' class action employment complaint against Amazon.com. The case is captioned, SANTIAGO RAYA on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants., CASE NO. 15-CV-02005 MMC (N.D. Cal.). AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Sued in N.J. Over Forced Annual Membership ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albert Talone, D.O., Craig Wax, D.O., Richard Renza,D.O., and Roy Stroller, D.O., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The American Osteopathic Association, Case No. 1:16- cv-04644-NLH-JS (D.N.J., August 1, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged illegal tying arrangement practices, specifically by forcing American Osteopathic Association board certified osteopathic physicians to purchase annual membership in the AOA. The American Osteopathic Association is an organization for osteopathic physicians in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wayne A. Mack, Esq. Seth A. Goldberg, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 979-100 Facsimile: (215) 979-1020 E-mail: WAMack@duanemorris.com SAGoldberg@duanemorris.com - and - James Greenberg, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 1940 Route 70 East, Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 874-4208 Facsimile: (856) 424-4446 E-mail: JGreenberg@duanemorris.com AMERITIES WEST: Treatment Plant Emits Toxic Gas, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that residents of a small town in the Columbia River Gorge say a wood- treatment plant emits toxic gases that threaten their health and envelop their homes with the smell of creosote. Carmen Kontour-Gonquist et al. filed a $20 million class action in Oregon for trespass against AmeriTies West on August 8. Kontour- Gonquist says more than 100 households in the area have contacted her attorney about the overwhelming smell emitted by the plant, which makes railroad ties. She does not want the plant shut down. AmeriTies is an important employer for The Dalles and its 15,000 residents, according to the complaint. But the process AmeriTies uses to treat railroad ties doesn't have to be so toxic, Kontour- Gonquist says. She says AmeriTies ignored years of complaints from residents who say the terrible fumes make them nauseous and give them headaches. The company could have taken steps to reduce the odor, used alternate treatments that emit less gas, or at least properly monitor the noxious fumes it emits, but it did none of those things, Kontour-Gonquist says. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality released monitoring results on Aug. 2, finding that levels of the toxic chemical naphthalene in the air near the plant "exceed long-term health benchmarks," though they are not high enough to cause immediate health problems. That means the plant is emitting enough toxic gas to "increase lifetime cancer risk with prolonged exposure," the DEQ said in a statement. The DEQ recorded 130 complaints about the plant between 2009 and 2014, the plaintiffs say, 51 of them in 2014 alone. One family reported to the DEQ: "We have lived in The Dalles, Oregon and Dallesport, Washington for the last 33 years. The odor from the creosote plant has continually been very nauseating and unpleasant over the years. . . . There are days that we can't open our windows, or go outside to do yard work due to the smell. . . . Please do something to stop the smell," according to the complaint. In April, AmeriTies signed an agreement and final order from the DEQ acknowledging the problem and promising to switch to a new formula for preserving railroad ties that contains less naphthalene by Nov. 30. The company's president, John McGinley, said the plant is on track to make that switch by the end of the year. "We conscientiously comply with all state and federal environmental and safety regulations," McGinley said in a statement. "The state is currently raising issues that have not been raised before. We have demonstrated our commitment to health and safety and will continue to maintain this commitment to our workers, to our neighbors and to our community." Nicholas Kahl, the Portland attorney representing the plaintiffs, said residents of The Dalles tried for years to get AmeriTies to stop polluting their town, but the company seemed short on commitment until it faced a lawsuit. Kahl said the purpose of the class action is partly to get compensation for damage the fumes have caused to residents' homes, but most of all, to find a permanent solution, enforceable in court. "After all the residents' complaints over the many years, and quite a lot of time working with residents in The Dalles and representatives of AmeriTies and trying to reach a solution without seeing any changes, that AmeriTies has voluntarily offered up any solutions contemporaneously with us filing a lawsuit is interesting," Kahl said. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit Over Treatment for Eating Disorders ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Anthem Blue Cross wrongfully denies coverage of treatment for eating disorders, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. AVVO: Suit Over Misappropriation of Names and Likeness Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a San Francisco attorney who accused legal marketplace Avvo of misappropriating attorneys' names and likenesses agreed to dismiss his case to avoid paying Avvo's attorney's fees, after a judge indicated his claims couldn't hold up. Tenant-rights lawyer Aaron Darsky, who sued Avvo in a federal class action in December for allegedly publishing his information online without his consent and charging other attorneys to advertise on his profile, agreed to dismiss the lawsuit after U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam made "very, very clear" that he would rule in Avvo's favor, making Darsky liable for the company's attorney's fees under California's anti-SLAAP statute, Avvo attorney Josh King said in an interview. In February, Seattle-based Avvo filed a motion to strike the class action under the statute, which is aimed at preventing lawsuits intended to maliciously burden a party with the cost of a legal defense. "They agreed to dismiss the case to avoid that ruling, which would have been a judgment against them for all of our attorney's fees," King said. In exchange for agreeing to dismiss his claims, Darsky will only pay a portion of Avvo's fees. That sum is confidential, according to King. Avvo creates profile pages for attorneys, listing their location, areas of practice, years of experience and client reviews, and assigns them an "Avvo rating." It then charges other lawyers to advertise on those profiles. Avvo claims on its website that it has rated 97 percent of attorneys in the United States. Founded in 2006 by former Expedia.com general counsel Mark Briton, Avvo was valued at $650 million last year, according to a Bloomberg News report cited in the complaint. King called the lawsuit "ludicrous," saying that under the theory of the case, Avvo is violating attorneys' right of publicity, the right of an individual to control their name, image and likeness. "If that theory was correct, Donald Trump could sue the Washington Post for writing an article about him," King said. This isn't the first time dissatisfied attorneys have sued Avvo. A similar class action is pending in Illinois, and a Florida attorney sued the company in 2010 for defamation. King said lawyers regularly object to Avvo's profiles because the company provides a forum for client feedback and publishes information about their misconduct. But King said Avvo isn't beholden to them. "We're publishing for the benefit of consumers, so we're not going to be in a position where [content] is based on the consent of the lawyers," he said. At the dismissal hearing in March, plaintiff's counsel Roy Katriel argued that Avvo's content is commercial speech and is therefore not constitutionally protected, because any attorney who advertises on the site is subject to having their advertisement regulated by the California State Bar. And while acknowledging in his complaint that an online legal directory is protected speech under the First Amendment, Darsky alleged that Avvo's directory in particular is not protected because the company uses it to make money. "Instead of merely compiling and posting a list of licensed attorneys, Avvo goes further and, without the consent of the very attorneys whose names and/or likeness-identifying information Avvo has compiled, Avvo uses those attorneys' names and/or likenesses to sell advertising or marketing programs to other attorneys," Darsky claimed. Avvo counsel Bruce Johnson countered at the March hearing that the company's legal directory is protected. "Mere proximity to advertising does not transform a fully protected statement into advertising," he said. Johnson is with Davis Wright Tremaine in Seattle. Katriel practices in La Jolla. Neither Katriel nor Darsky could be reached for comment on August 5. BACK ON THE BEACH: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Get Meal Break Premiums ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RENE GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BACK ON THE BEACH COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. BC629398 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all "hourly employees," seeking meal break premiums, rest break premiums, reporting time pay, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Back on the Beach Food Company, Inc., is a California corporation operating within the state of California. The Defendant's corporate address is believed to be at 2024 Broadway, in Santa Monica, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com BANNER HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over June Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Court House News Service reported that Banner Health exposed the personal information of 3.7 million patients, customers and employees in a June data breach, a class action claims in Maricopa County Court. BATON ROUGE: Faces Class Suit by Black Lives Matter Members ----------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson is lead plaintiff in a class action against the city of Baton Rouge over arrests during peaceful protests following the shooting death of Alton Sterling, a black man, by white police officers. The federal class action targets the "unlawful mass arrests and prosecutions under constitutionally dubious statues, regulations, policies and practices" made by Baton Rouge police and others, the lawsuit said. McKesson, a Baltimore resident, says that he was arrested by Baton Rouge police on July 9 while peacefully protesting. He was released the following day and the charges against him were later dropped by Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore. Kira Marrero, a Louisiana resident, and La Riva, a filmmaker from San Francisco, along with McKesson, say that although they have received pro bono legal representation, they still had to post substantial bail and pay administrative fees to clear their criminal arrest records before charges against them were dropped. "Defendants deprived plaintiffs and class members of their civil rights and selectively interpreted and enforced the laws, based upon the facts that plaintiffs and class members were protesting Defendants' conduct and were seeking changes to Defendants' policies, practices and procedures," the lawsuit says. Plaintiffs say that despite the peaceful nature of the protests, "defendants responded in a militarized and aggressive manner. Police advanced against protestors dressed in military gear, with gas masks, shin guards, face shields, brandishing assault weapons alongside heavy military vehicles." Further, they say, "Baton Rouge Police Department, Louisiana State Police and East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Officers threatened non-violent protestors by pointing their weapons directly at them." The police officers "ordered class members to walk on the sidewalks, and to not walk in the street," the lawsuit says, going to contend "this order was unreasonable and placed citizens walking along Airline Highway and other streets in danger, because those streets do not have sidewalks and the adjacent areas were uneven or not mowed and contained hazards that could not be seen." They also argue the "defendants arrested class members after defendants had closed the public highway, such that there was no through traffic to obstruct, and therefore there could be no practical violation of" any ordinance. Also, "defendants detained, arrested, and charged plaintiffs and class members with state misdemeanor violations, when municipal citations, traffic citations, or other less harsh enforcement was available." Plaintiffs say defendants used "excessive force in attacking, battering, beating, and assaulting plaintiffs and class members without provocation or the need for defense." Defendants also violated the First Amendment right of freedom of the press by arresting press members, who were journalists, photo journalists, camera persons and reporters and throwing them in jail Named defendants are the City of Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Parish Mayor Melvin "Kip" Holden, Baton Rouge Chief of Police Carl Dabadie Jr., Baton Rouge Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux III and Col. Michael Edmonson, Superintendent of Louisiana State Police. Officials from the Baton Rouge Police Department and the sheriff's office did not immediately reply to phoned requests for comment August 5. On July 15 the office for East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore announced in a pair of releases that his office will not prosecute 100 of the 185 activists arrested during protests. "These particular cases only involve facts where the person arrested failed to comply with an officer's direction to leave the roadway or public passage," the release from the district attorney's office said. "While all citizens have the right to assemble and protest, they do not have the right to block streets and impede the flow of traffic. Under Louisiana law, first-time offenders, should they avoid further arrests and convictions, may have their misdemeanor arrests expunged from the criminal history records of the State of Louisiana at no cost." Plaintiffs are asking the court to nullify their arrests and expunge their records. They also seek an order that bars defendants from mentioning the arrests to prospective employers, and finally, the return of all bond payments made. A representative from the Parish attorney's office August 5, said in a phone interview that the Louisiana law on waived fees for expungement is clear, and that if the district attorney agrees, protesters who were arrested should have no problem having their records expunged free of charge. The individual, who did not want to be named, said also that in situations where protestors were charged with federal or state rather than local offenses, as the lawsuit stated, it was probably because the protestors in those cases were arrested by police officers working under federal or state and not local jurisdictions, since dozens of police came in from outlying areas during the protests. The lawsuit was filed by John Etter of Rodney & Etter in New Orleans. Attorneys for Rodney & Etter were not immediately reached by phoned and emailed requests for comment August 5. BAYADA HOME: "Reed" Class Suit Seeks Relief Under Pa. Wage Acts --------------------------------------------------------------- LATISHA REED and NADEEM PIERRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 160800491 (Pa. Comm. Pleas, August 3, 2016), seeks all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Moorestown, New Jersey. Bayada provides in-home healthcare services throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States. Bayada maintains over 300 offices throughout the United States and many in the Commonwealth. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Shaffer, Esq. Michael Gaier, Esq. SHAFFER & GAIER, LLC 8 Perm Center, Suite 400 1628 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215)751-0100 Facsimile: (215)751-0723 E-mail: mshaffer@shaffergaier.com - and - Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (610) 891-9883 E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com ishah@sfmslaw.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Barney" Suit Over Pradaxa Promotion ---------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY BARNEY, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH (Conn. Super. Ct., August 4, 2016), was filed over the Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R), throughout the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Phone: 630-232-6333 Fax: 630-845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Carreira" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) ----------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA CARREIRA v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, (Conn. Super., Judicial District of Hartford, August 4, 2016), was filed over the Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R), throughout the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Phone: 630-232-6333 Fax: 630-845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bedsole" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BEDSOLE, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH; (Conn. Super., Judicial District of Hartford, August 4, 2016), was filed over the Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for patients with non- valvular atrial fibrillation. Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R), throughout the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Phone: 630-232-6333 Fax: 630-845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Boro" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) ------------------------------------------------------- SHIRLEY BORO, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NEXT OF KIN AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH BORO, DECEASED, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ROXANE, INC.; and MCKESSON CORPORATION, (Conn. Super., Judicial District of Hartford, August 4, 2016), was filed over the Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for patients with non- valvular atrial fibrillation. Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R), throughout the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bellah" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BELLAH v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH; (Conn. Super., Judicial District of Hartford, August 4, 2016), was filed over the Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R), throughout the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Brian J. Perkins, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Phone: 630-232-6333 Fax: 630-845-8982 E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com BRIAN LEE: Sued for Not Complying With Property Management Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN JAMES and MICHELLE JAMES v. BRIAN LEE, MICHAEL LEE and DOES 1-30, Case No. RG16825773 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 3, 2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs, all persons similarly situated, and the People of the state of California arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to comply with state and local law for the management of real property. On February 1, 2011, the Plaintiffs, as tenants, and the Defendants, as owner, agent or lessor, entered into a written agreement to rent the premises located at 117 Sycamore Street, in Fremont, California, to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that at the time of the making of the written rental agreement, the Defendants represented to the Plaintiffs that the Subject Premises was a legally constructed premises permitted by the City Fremont and in safe and habitable condition. The Plaintiffs argue that these representations were false, and were known to be false by the Defendants at the time they made these representations to Plaintiffs. Said defective conditions included no heat; water leaks and water intrusion; mold and mildew contamination and defective plumbing. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1956 Webster Street, Suite 275 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com C. R. BARD: Class Action Over Composix(R) Kugel(R) Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, 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 as of June 30, 2016, approximately 30 federal and 70 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 100 plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the United States, are currently pending against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently, other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014. As of June 30, 2016, all but one of the putative class actions pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining putative class action pending against the company has not been certified and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 50 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 50 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. The company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. C. R. BARD: Claims by 11,390 Plaintiffs Pending ----------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, 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 as of June 30, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 11,390 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the company's surgical continence products for women. With respect to a majority of these lawsuits, the company believes that two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company, have an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product defect liability. In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims". The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in one Canadian putative class action. In March 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded by the company. The company expects administration of those settlements to take place over the next several quarters. In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV District Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million, which was upheld by the Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product Claims. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV District Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders") (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuing through the second quarter of 2015. In February 2015, the WV District Court appointed a Special Master to assist with settlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV District Court issued an order staying the requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered by the WHP Pre-Trial Orders, which stay could be modified at the court's discretion. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional cost in future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. The WV District Court may also order that the company prepare additional cases for trial, which could result in material additional costs in future periods. C. R. BARD: Settled 2,235 Health Product Claims During 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, 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 as of June 30, 2016, the company reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 9,080 Women's Health Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during 2014, 6,285 during 2015 and 2,235 during 2016. The company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law firms, which have not been included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts, the company anticipates additional trials over the next 12 months. In addition, one or more possible consolidated trials may occur in the future. In July 2015, as part of the agreement noted, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss without prejudice their previously filed litigation with respect to Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the company. The approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 655 generic complaints involving women's health products where the company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints, determine whether any of those cases involve the company's women's health products. In addition, the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 1,010 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs' law firms, the company has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the company. While the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 770 Plaintiffs Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, 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 as of June 30, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 770 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena cava filter products. In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation ("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the District of Arizona. There are approximately 660 Filter Product Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL. The remaining approximately 110 Filter Product Claims are pending in various state courts. In March 2016, a Canadian class action was filed against the company in Quebec. In April 2016 and May 2016, Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British Columbia, respectively. The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company. During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The approximate number of lawsuits set forth above do not include approximately 40 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the company. The company expects that additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months. While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Desalinated Water Subsidy ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a Superior Court class action claims Santa Barbara makes some customers who do not get desalinated water subsidize the cost of providing it to others who do. CEDARS BUSINESS: Illegally Records Telephone Dialogue, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen S. Chang, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cedars Business Services, LLC d/b/a Cedar Financial, and Does 1-25, Case No. BC628781 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 28, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful recording of confidential telephone conversations without the consent of individuals. Cedars Business Services, LLC provides recovery and collection services for international and domestic debts. 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 - and - James T. Ryan, Esq. JAMES T. RYAN, PC 1110 Glenville Drive #307 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 990-2889 E-mail: jr@jamestryan.com CLIENT FIRST: "Mogavero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Mogavero, Dawn Bossaller, Marc Cohen, Justin Metz, Enrique Rodriguez and Brenda Vance, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Client First Settlement Funding, LLC and Burt Kroner, Case No. 9:16-cv-81362-WPD (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a financial services company located at 301 Yamato Rd #3200, Boca Raton, FL 33431. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam S. Chotiner, Esq. Robin I. Frank, Esq. SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A. 7777 Glades Rd., Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 477-7800 Facsimile: (561) 477-7722 E-mail: aschotiner@sbwlawfirm.com rifrank@sbwlawfirm.com COASTLINE METAL: Faces "Castro" Suit Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO CASTRO, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COASTLINE METAL FINISHING CORPORATION, a California Corporation, and DOES I through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC 629449 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, August 4, 2016), was filed over alleged failure by the Defendants to provide meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime and double time wages, as well as waiting time penalties, and penalties or damages for failure to keep accurate records, and penalties under the California Labor Code. COASTLINE METAL FINISHING CORPORATION is a metal finisher and a full service metal plating company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard L. Magee, Esq. Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: Iwlee@diversitylaw.com - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. Paul M. Yi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, PC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 381-1515 Fax: (213) 465-4885 E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com COCO NAIL: "Zabala" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lilia Zabala, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Coco Nail & Spa Si, Inc. d/b/a Coco Nails & Spa and Dae Seok Kim and Jane Doe and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:16-cv- 04197 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Coco Nails salon located at 2456 Richmond Ave., Staten Island, NY 10314. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss N.J. Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains pending. On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv- 05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding the Company's financial results, business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief. Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. On December 17, 2015, the defendant motion to dismiss the case was granted and the case dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were permitted to re-file their claim, which they did on February 5, 2016. Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on April 5, 2016, which remains pending with the court. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation will have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of June 30, 2016 the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter. CORELOGIC INC: Brief in "Stevens" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Nov. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT STEVENS and STEVEN VANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CORELOGIC, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 16-56089 (9th Cir., August 1, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from a lower court decision in Case No. 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 7, 2014). Appellants Robert Stevens and Steven Vandel's opening brief is due November 7, 2016. Appellee Corelogic, Inc.'s answering brief is due December 06, 2016. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. The Plaintiffs - Appellants are represented by: Kirk B. Hulett, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1133 - and - Darren Quinn, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DARREN J. QUINN 12702 Via Cortina, Suite 105 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (858) 509 9401 The Defendant - Appellee is represented by: Daralyn Jeannine Durie, Esq. DURIE TANGRI LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 362 6666 - and - Joseph Gratz, Esq. DURIE TANGRI LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 430 8223 CREA ENTERPRISE: Faces "Me Ae Song" Suit Over Labor Code Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- ME AE SONG, an individual, v. CREA ENTERPRISE CORP., a Corporation, JOSHUA PARK, an individual, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No: BC 629531 (Cal. Super. County of Los Angeles, August 4, 2016), alleges failure by Defendants to pay overtime wages in violation of the Labor Code, failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of Labor Code, violation of Labor Code for failure to keep accurate records, and unfair business practices. CREA ENTERPRISE CORP. operates a beauty salon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward W. Choi, Esq. Paul M. Yi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 381-1515 Fax: (213)465-4885 CREA ENTERPRISE: "Kim" Suit Alleges Violations of Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ ANAIS JUNGHA KIM, an individual, v. CREA ENTERPRISE CORP., a Corporation, JOSHUA PARK an individual and DOES 1 through 30 inclusive, Case No. BC 629530 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles Central District, August 4, 2016), seeks damages as a result of Plaintiff's employment by Defendants, from on or about August 2008 to April 2016. CREA ENTERPRISE CORP. operates a beauty salon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward W. Choi, Esq. Paul M. Yi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 381-1515 Fax: (213)465-4885 CVS HEALTH: Court Dismissed Most State Law Claims in "Corcoran" --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that customers who claim CVS overcharges for generic drugs need plaintiffs from 38 more states to proceed as a nationwide class action, a federal judge in Oakland, Calif ruled. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on July 29, dismissed without prejudice most state law claims in the lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Christopher Corcoran in August 2015. Corcoran claimed that CVS charged insured customers and their insurers up to four times as much for generic drugs than it charged uninsured patients. Though CVS called it a Health Savings Pass, the pharmacy chain demanded higher co-pays from insured customers and submitted inflated prices to insurers, according to the original complaint. Judge Rogers rejected CVS' attempt to dismiss the case in March. But on July 29, Rogers found the named plaintiffs resided in and alleged injuries in only 12 states and Washington, D.C., and so could not allege injuries in 38 other jurisdictions. "In these circumstances, plaintiffs should be required to have named plaintiffs with standing to prosecute claims under the laws of those thirty-eight states," Rogers wrote. "Further, it remains to be seen the extent to which a nationwide class could be certified given the allegations." Rogers rejected CVS's motion to dismiss Texas state law claims, finding two new plaintiffs from Texas adequately alleged that CVS duped them into paying higher prices, in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. With 7,866 U.S. outlets, CVS is the nation's largest purchaser of drugs. It fills or manages more than 1 billion prescriptions a year, nearly a third of the nation's prescriptions, according to the original complaint. CVS reported net revenue of $139.4 billion in 2014, with $67 billion coming from its retail pharmacy business. The plaintiffs seek an injunction, disgorgement and damages. Class attorney Elizabeth Pritzker of Pritzker Levine in Oakland did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment August 1. CVS attorney Ashley Hardin of Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., declined to comment. The case captioned, CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, INC., Defendant., Case No. 15-CV-504 YGR (N.D. Cal.). CYTRX CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Greguy Dorce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cytrx Corporation, Steven A. Kriegsman, and John Y. Caloz, Case No. 2:16-cv-05666 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Cytrx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com DALLAS CENTRAL: LPF Coppell Files Suit Over Property Appraisal -------------------------------------------------------------- LPF COPPELL TRADE CENTER LP v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case no: DC-16-09450 (D. Tex., Dallas County, August 4, 2016), seeks monetary relief of US$100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertaining to Plaintiffs property). Discovery in the case is intended to be conducted in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190, Level 2. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Pernai, Esq. FLANAGAN BILTON, LLC 500 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 400 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: (312) 782-5000 Fax: (312) 565-0821 E-mail: Bob.Pernai@flanaganbilton.com DALLAS CENTRAL: "Mushir" Seeks Trial De Novo -------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in MOHAMED MUSHIR AND SALMA MUSHIR, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT Case No: DC-16-09411 (D. Tex., Dallas County, August 4, 2016), seeks a trial de novo of the Dallas Appraisal Review Board's order determining the appraised value of the Plaintiff's property. On May 1, 2016, plaintiffs were notified by Defendant that the value of the Property had been appraised for 2016 at $907,950. The complaint asserts that the determination of the appraised value was excessive and unequal in comparison with other similar properties in the appraisal district, and that the correct appraised value of the property as of January l, 2016 is substantially below the value determined by the Dallas Appraisal Review Board. Moreover, all conditions precedent to a trial de novo before the court have been performed or have occurred. All administrative remedies have been exhausted and the agency decision is final and appealable, Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to a trial de novo of the Board's order. Plaintiffs are the owners, lessees, or operators of real property located in Dallas County, Texas and listed on the Dallas Central Appraisal District's appraisal roll. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Estes, Esq. ESTES & GANDHI P.C. 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 272-8030 Fax: (214) 390-3303 E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com DAVID DALEIDEN: 7 Women File Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------- June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Planned Parenthood scourge David Daleiden should not be given personal information from the University of Washington's Birth Defects Research Laboratory because it could endanger people's privacy and safety, seven women say in a federal class action in Seattle. Seven Jane Does and a John Doe on August 3, sued Daleiden, an anti-abortion activist who became famous for releasing videos accusing Planned Parenthood of trying to sell fetal tissue. They also sued Zachary Freeman, another anti-abortion activist and Planned Parenthood opponent, and the University of Washington, from whom the men seek documents "relate(d) to the donation and transfer of fetal tissue involving the University of Washington's Birth Defects Research Laboratory." The Does say they "do not object to disclosure of the substantive records themselves, but merely seek to have their personal identifying information withheld to protect their safety and privacy." The plaintiffs include three employees of the University of Washington, employees of three Washington hospitals, a Planned Parenthood employee and a former Planned Parenthood employee. The UW lab "collects, identifies, processes, and distributes fetal tissue for research purposes to nonprofit and academic facilities across the country," according to the complaint. Some plaintiffs say they already have been harassed by anti- abortion activists due to their participation in the lab. "The current political climate has heightened attention and awareness of fetal tissue donation and research, including the role played by providers of medical services who facilitate tissue donation by patients who consent to donating, as well as the work of researchers who use fetal tissue in their research," the complaint states. "Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress played a direct role in creating that political climate, which has resulted in investigations by numerous state attorneys general and federal congressional committees. So far, none of the investigations have found any evidence of wrongdoing. Also as a result of the same climate and attention, employees of such medical providers across the country, including in Washington State and including several individual Doe plaintiffs, have been harassed, threatened, or witnessed incidents of violence due to their possible affiliation with fetal tissue donations." Freeman is director of communications for the Family Policy Institute of Washington, which wants Planned Parenthood defunded. Daleiden, founder of the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress, made headlines in 2015 by releasing undercover videos filmed while posing as a potential buyer of fetal tissue at a Planned Parenthood in Houston. Planned Parenthood sued Daleiden over the video, claiming it was deceptively edited. Texas prosecutors in July dismissed felony charges against Daleiden for tampering with a government record: using fake drivers' licenses to gain access to the Planned Parenthood facility. A misdemeanor charge relating to the ban on purchasing human organ was dismissed against Daleiden in June. Daleiden responded to the new lawsuit with a statement: "Planned Parenthood and their allies have yet again stormed into federal court, this time demanding the suppression of public records about Planned Parenthood's supply of aborted baby parts to the taxpayer- sponsored, NIH-funded fetal harvesting service at the University of Washington." One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Janet Chung, said in a statement: "We know all too well the importance of protecting the privacy and safety of clinicians and researchers involved in controversial issues, such as fetal tissue donation." The plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment that releasing their names and other personal information would violate their privacy and rights of association, and an injunction ordering that all such personal information be redacted if the records are released. Attorney Chung is with Legal Voice; co-counsel include Vanessa Soriano Power with Stoel Rives, and David Edwards with Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece, all of Seattle. DIRECTV: Faces RICO Class Action by Beauty Salon Owner ------------------------------------------------------ Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that DirecTV defrauds small businesses by selling them residential, rather than business, satellite TV, then threatening to prosecute them for theft of service, to extort an unconscionable "settlement" from them, a beauty salon owner says in a RICO class action. Doneyda Perez, owner of Oneida's Beauty and Barber Salon in Garden Grove, claims DirecTV conspired with New York attorney Julie Cohen Lonstein and her Lonstein Law Office "to extort an unreasonable and unconscionable 'settlement' . . . for the purported theft of the satellite cable television services." A nearly identical RICO class action was filed against DirecTV and Cohen Lonstein in Middlesex, N.J., Superior Court on Oct. 16, 2015, and removed to Federal Court on Nov. 20. That lead plaintiff, Angela Joaquin, like Perez, is a Latina who runs a beauty salon. Both Joaquin and Perez say DirecTV target minority- owned businesses. Perez says the defendants "do not confine themselves to minority small business owners, however they target minority small business owners with the belief that such owners are less likely to dispute or challenge the allegations." Virtually all of Perez's claims track the allegations in Joaquin's lawsuit. "Defendants do not provide the owners with any written contracts, agreements, notices or other documents regarding the satellite cable television services which they have purchased," Perez says. "The business owners do not solicit, request or direct that the satellite cable television services which they have purchased be provided under a residential account," Perez says. In her case, a DirecTV salesman entered her salon, unsolicited, in 2014 and offered her "a promotional deal" of satellite TV for $27.50 a month for two years. Perez says she agreed to the deal, but DirecTV never told her the account would be processed as a residential account rather than a business account, nor did she ask for a residential account. "Without the business owners being made aware, defendants designate the accounts as 'residential,' despite the fact that defendants solicited Ms. Perez and those similarly situated because they were small business owners," she says in the complaint. After service is installed, the defendants "send 'independent' auditors to the businesses where they clandestinely obtain photographs and/or video recordings which purport to show that the businesses are using the satellite cable television services in an unauthorized manner as those services are provided under a residential, rather than commercial, account," Perez says. "Using the results of these audits, defendants then send legal correspondence to the business owners alleging that they have 'pirated' or stolen satellite cable television services, and threaten legal action unless the owners agree to pay thousands of dollars and/or become business subscribers.'" Perez says the defendants have made thousands of dollars like this from "the small business owners who have been their victims." Perez says she received a letter from the Lonstein law firm dated June 26, 2015, "with an attached proposed settlement agreement," accusing her of receiving unauthorized DirecTV programming and threatening to prosecute or sue unless she paid a $5,000 settlement. Perez says she was "misled and fraudulently induced" into settling and began paying $500 per month. Perez claims Lonstein is not licensed to practice law in California, and her law firm and DirecTV "willfully and unlawfully conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in a pattern of racketeering activity." The proposed class is small business owners in the United States who DirecTV solicited for satellite television services in the past four years and who later were threatened with criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit for theft of services. Perez seeks class certification, disgorgement of unjust profits plus interest, an accounting and treble damages for RICO violations and unfair competition. She is represented by Kevin Mahoney of Long Beach, who could not be reached for comment over the weekend. Nor could Lonstein and her law office or DirecTV. In the New Jersey case, lead plaintiff Joaquin is represented by Andrew Li with The Wolf Law Firm in North Brunswick, N.J. She also alleged consumer fraud and common law fraud and also sued Verizon, which she said offered her bundled services with DirecTV. Joaquin also sued "Installation Company 1-10" and "Auditing Company 1-10." Newspapers across the country have reported complaints from small business owners who feel they were preyed upon by DirecTV. The Dallas Morning News, for example, reported such complaints from Texas, California, Maine, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, in November 2013. That article refers to the Lonstein Law Office, of Ellenville, N.Y., as DirecTV's "collections law firm." DirecTV uses third-party installers, the Morning News reported, and "In 2010, DirecTV signed an agreement with the Texas attorney general that the company would closely monitor its third-party installers to make sure they engage in truthful business practices." The Ogden, Utah Standard Examiner last year published a similar report, with complaints against DirecTV and the Lonstein Law Office from small business owners in the same states, plus Utah and Ohio. DIVERSIFIED MACHINE: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Don McKinney and Sonya Brantley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diversified Machine Bristol, LLC, Chassix, Inc., and XYZ Entities 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00504 (N.D. Ind., August 1, 2016), is brought on behalf of all former employees of the Defendants who were terminated without cause in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Defendants operate a company that supplies chassis, brake, and powertrain components to major automobile manufacturers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Misch, Esq. ANDERSON, AGOSTINO & KELLER 131 South Taylor Street South Bend, IN 46601 Telephone: (574) 288-1510 Facsimile: (574) 288-1650 E-mail: lawyers@aaklaw.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: ek@zlk.com ckupka@zlk.com mershowsky@zlk.com DO PRODUCTIONS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Hermes Bustamante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D.O. Productions, LLC ("D.O.") and McCain Foods USA, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-04618-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., July 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay its employees all wages due. The Defendants own and operate a frozen food production facility at 11 Gregg Street, Lodi, New Jersey 07644. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Schley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC 197 Route 18 South Tower, Suite 3000 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone: (732) 325-0318 E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com - and - Craig Livingston, Esq. LIVINGSTON DIMARZIO, LLP 661 Franklin Avenue Nutley, NJ 07110 Telephone: (973) 661-4545 E-mail: clivingston@workplacelawyers.com EAGLE MARINE: "O'Neal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ivan O'Neal, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. Eagle Marine Contracting, LLC d/b/a EM Contracting and d/b/a EM Contracting, LLC, and Raphael G. Burchfield, Case No. 1:16-cv-00401-KD-B (S.D. Ala., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a marine construction company in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian D. Rosenthal, Esq. ROSENTHAL PARKS LLP P.O. Box 1924 Mobile, AL 36633 Telephone: (251) 338-0949 Facsimile: (251) 206-6760 E-mail: idr@rosenthalparks.com - and - Richard W. Fuquay, Esq. DIAMOND FUQUAY, LLC P.O. Box 40633 Mobile, AL 36640 Telephone: (251) 473-4443 Facsimile: (251) 473-4486 E-mail: rwf@diamondfuquay.com EMCARE OF CALIFORNIA: Violates Labor Code, "Norris" Suit Asserts ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA NORRIS and LISA STEBBINS, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMCARE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC629485 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2016), accuses the Defendants of systematic violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business & Professions Code, and applicable Wage Orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission. EmCare California, Inc. is a California corporation. EmCare provides health care management services to hospitals and healthcare organizations. EmCare operates throughout the State of California, including in Los Angeles County. The Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Tina Mehr, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 9130 I Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com tmehr@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Thomas A. Cifarelli, Esq. CIFARELLI LAW FIRM 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 502-8600 Facsimile: (949) 502-8603 E-mail: realdele@aol.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Underwood" Class Suit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH D. UNDERWOOD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION, LLC, and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-07829 (N.D. Ill., August 3, 2016), is an action for damages brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, following months of accurate reporting on his credit reports, and without explanation, in September 2015, the Defendants began reporting errant delinquencies for the Plaintiff's child support account with the Texas Attorney General's Office. The Plaintiff contends that his disputes to the Defendants remain unresolved, and despite having fully satisfied all child support obligations to date, his credit standing has been negatively affected by the Defendants' numerous incorrect "late" designations on his OAG account, resulting in difficult financial choices for his family. Experian is a for-profit corporation, with headquarters in Schaumburg, Illinois. Trans Union is a for-profit limited liability company, with corporate headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. Equifax is a for-profit limited liability company that maintains offices in Lombard, Illinois. The Defendants are engaged in the business of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of reporting or furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and are consumer reporting agencies as defined by the FCRA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 E. Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sued in Mo. Over Alleged Prescription Slamming --------------------------------------------------------------- Trone Health Services, Inc., Reddish Pharmacy, Inc., Jabos Pharmacy, Inc., Oak Tree Pharmacy, and Amrut Jal, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts, Inc., Express Scripts Mail Order Processing, Inc., Express Scripts Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc., and Does 1-20, Case No. 4:16-cv-01250-RLW (E.D. Mo., August 1, 2016), seeks to end the Defendants' prescription "slamming" practices of wrongly appropriating the Plaintiffs' (retail pharmacies) customer information and prescription data and using it to divert the Plaintiffs' customers to the Defendants' own mail order pharmacy business. The Defendants operate a pharmacy benefit management organization throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael A. Bowse, Esq. BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: mbowse@bgrfirm.com FACEBOOK INC: Class C Reclassification Litig. Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, In re Facebook, Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No. 12286-VCL. The company said, "On April 27, 2016, we announced a proposal to create a new class of non-voting capital stock (Class C capital stock) and our intention to declare and pay a dividend of two shares of Class C capital stock for each outstanding share of Class A and Class B common stock (the Reclassification). Following our announcement of the Reclassification, beginning on April 29, 2016, multiple purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of our stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery against us, certain of our board of directors, and Mark Zuckerberg. The lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption In re Facebook, Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No. 12286-VCL, and the consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Reclassification. Among other remedies, these lawsuits seek to enjoin the Reclassification as well as unspecified money damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. We believe that the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted." FLORIS CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Wuilson Romero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Floris Construction, Inc. and Stamatis Kostikidis, Case No. 1:16-cv-04282 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a construction company located at 31-30 41st St, Astoria, NY 11103. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3510 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Telephone: (718) 777-0400 Facsimile: (718) 777-0599 E-mail: contact@pnlawyers.com FRESHPOINT INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Rodriguez Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Freshpoint Inc., Freshpoint San Francisco, Inc., and Does l-100, Case No. RG16825142 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants are engaged in the distribution of fresh produce in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com GATEWAYS ENERGY: Sued Over Natural Gas Supply Contract Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- David Eisig, individually and on behalf of all Similarly situated persons v. Gateways Energy Services Corporation, f/k/a EConnergy Energy Company Inc. and Direct Energy Services, LLC., Case No. 605739/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 28, 2016), is brought on behalf of all members of three separate classes of residential natural gas customers of the Defendants who were over-charged in direct violation and breach of a variable rate natural gas supply contract entered into with the Defendants. Gateways Energy Services Corporation operates an energy services company in New York. Direct Energy Services, LLC is a residential energy retailer in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Sod, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL M. SOD 337 R Central Avenue Lawrence, NT 11559 Telephone: (516) 295-0707 Facsimile: (516) 295-0722 GIOVANNI'S ITALIAN: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- FLORIBERTO VILLALVA ESTRADA, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. GIOVANNI'S ITALIAN EATERY, INC., and HANNA BOJAJ, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:16-cv- 06162 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2016), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and are liable to the Plaintiff and class plaintiffs for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation. Giovanni's Italian Eatery, Inc., is a New York business corporation with its office in New York County. The Defendants' business is a limited-service restaurant doing business as Giovanni's Pizza and located at 1011 Columbus Avenue, in New York City. Hanna Bojaj is an owner, shareholder, officer, or manager of the Defendants' business. The Plaintiff is 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 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com GLOBAL PAYMENTS: MOU Reached in Suit Over Heartland Deal -------------------------------------------------------- Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that the settlement of a class action lawsuit remains pending. Heartland, Heartland's board of directors, Global Payments, Data Merger Sub One, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments) and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger with Heartland. The suit was filed on January 8, 2016 in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, and is captioned Kevin Merchant v. Heartland Payment Systems, et al, L-45-16. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Heartland breached their fiduciary duties to Heartland stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for inadequate consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the merger agreement, failing to properly value Heartland, and filing a materially incomplete registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the complaint alleges that Heartland, Global Payments, Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the validity of any allegations made by the plaintiff, Heartland and Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the suit and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms and conditions for settlement of the suit. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. If the proposed settlement is approved by the court, it will release all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger with Heartland or the merger agreement related thereto and any disclosure made in connection therewith, under terms that will be disclosed to stockholders before final approval of the proposed settlement. The settlement, if approved, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, results of operations or cash flows. HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Faces St. Paul Teachers' Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Heartware International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association filed a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims the Company and one of our executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about, among other things, the Company's response to the June 2014 FDA warning letter, the development of the MVAD System and the acquisition of Valtech. The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of the Company's stock during the Class Period. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. As a result we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly have not accrued any liability associated with this action. HONDA MOTOR: Hands-Free Car Phones Defective, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that for years, Honda has made Acuras with defective hands-free phone units that drain the battery when the car is off, according to a federal class action filed in San Francisco, August 3. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Watkins" Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Honeywell International Inc. The case is captioned Ann Watkins, for herself and others similarly- situate, James Ulicny, for himself and others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Honeywell International Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01925-JGC (N.D. Ohio, August 1, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. James G. Carr. Honeywell International is an American multinational conglomerate company that produces a variety of commercial and consumer products, engineering services and aerospace systems for a wide variety of customers, from private consumers to major corporations and governments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Israel, Esq. John G. Adam, Esq. MARTENS, ICE, KLASS, LEGGHIO, ISRAEL & GORCHOW 306 South Washington, Ste. 600 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398 5900 Facsimile: (248) 398 2662 E-mail: israel@legghioisrael.com jga@legghioisrael.com HYUNDAI: Settlement in Suit Over Santa Fe SUVs Has Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Hyundai has agreed to fix cars for 10 years and offer rebates toward buying or leasing replacement cars to settle claims that it deceived buyers about a stalling defect in one of its SUVs. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on August 2, preliminarily approved the settlement and certified the settlement class of which named plaintiffs Julia Reniger and Greg Battaglia accused the automaker in 2014 of failing to tell buyers that its 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe SUVs stall and even completely lose power. The stalling endangers pedestrians because drivers can't brake or steer once the car shuts off, the plaintiffs said in their class action. Hyundai has denied that the Santa Fe is defective, that the stalling risks driver and pedestrian safety, or that it broke the law by not telling consumers about the problems, according to the plaintiffs' settlement motion. Despite granting preliminary approval, Wilken expressed concerns about certifying a settlement class that could sue under the laws of several states. Hyundai attorney Eric Kizirian waylaid those concerns, however, noting that several similar class actions have recently been certified on a nationwide basis. "I'm not sure there would be an entitlement to more under the laws of various states," Kizirian added. "I don't know what more Hyundai could give in this instance." Under the terms of the settlement, Hyundai will reimburse more than 77,000 class members up to the maximum for the money they've spent fixing their cars, and fix those cars for free for 10 years after they were put on the market. The fix entails a software update to the vehicles' electronic throttle control. "That has a significant value," Kizirian said. Plaintiffs' counsel Mark Greenstone indicated to the court that the settlement is fair. Hyundai's service campaign to fix the defect has reduced the number of stalling complaints from about 70 per month nationwide when the campaign was launched in April 2015 to a little less than one per month, Kizirian told the court. That indicates that the defect has been resolved, he said. Hyundai will also give class members who experienced a stall rebates ranging between $250 and $1,000 toward buying or leasing certain new Hyundai vehicles. If class members experience another stall after Hyundai fixes the defect, the automaker will provide them with an enhanced rebate of between $500 and $2,000. However, Hyundai can contest enhanced rebate claims if it finds that the second stall occurred because the software update wasn't installed correctly. "Would you characterize this as a coupon settlement?" Wilken asked on hearing about the rebate. In a "coupon settlement," defendants give coupons to class members. In the past, class members were often induced into buying additional products to redeem the coupons -- essentially rewarding defendants for their wrongdoing -- and any settlement cash was gobbled up by attorneys' fees. As a result, coupon settlements came to be regarded as a payday for class counsel that bilked class members. In response, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005 requiring in-depth review of coupon settlements and allowing more class actions to be heard in Federal Court. The law also required that the U.S. attorney general and the attorneys general of states where class members reside be given the opportunity to review proposed settlements and to intervene if they deem them to be unfair. Kizirian assured the court that this is not a coupon settlement. "The campaign was made available for the life of the cars," he said. "The reason we're asking for a rebate certificate is for people who still want to get rid of their cars." Plaintiffs' counsel is applying for $745,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses. In preliminarily certifying the settlement, Wilken signaled that the requested attorney's fees are reasonable. Kizirian is with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith in Los Angeles. Greenstone is with Glancy Prongay & Murray, also in Los Angeles. IBEX CONSTRUCTION: Sued by React Industries Over $42K+ Debt ----------------------------------------------------------- REACT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND BLAKE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CO., INC., on behalf of itself and all other persons similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law Trusts of which IBEX CONSTRUCTION INC, is a trustee v. IBEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC and ANDY FRANKL, and JOHN DOES "1" THROUGH "10", Case No. 156458/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 3, 2016), alleges that IBEX owes React $42,350 with interest from January 1, 2016. IBEX is a foreign limited liability company, authorized to do business within the state of New York, and having a principal place of business in New York City. IBEX is in the business of performing general construction work and mechanical work. Andy Frankl is a member of IBEX. The true identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown. Commencing in 2015, React and IBEX entered into a series of Agreements wherein and whereby it was agreed that React would furnish and install the materials and labor necessary to install the required heating, ventilation and air conditioning ("HVAC") systems on various projects, including New York Downtown Hospital for monetary consideration exceeding $179,440 including certain extras, according to the complaint. From 2015 and thereafter, React provided the labor and materials to IBEX at the Projects. The work was completed by React and approved and accepted by IBEX and the owners of the various projects without objection. React alleges that the Defendants have not paid for the labor and materials installed and supplied and there is a balance due and owing of $42,350 from IBEX to React. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael M. Rabinowitz, Esq. RABINOWITZ, GALINA & ROSEN 94 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 739-8222 E-mail: mrabinowitz@randglaw.net IMAGE LINE: Faces "Thomas" Suit in District of Utah --------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Image Line. The case is captioned Joshua Thomas, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Image Line, Wind River Trucking, and Rain Chief Resource Management, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00845-DBP (D. Utah, August 1, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Dustin B. Pead. Wind River provides trucking of fresh water, flowback and production water. The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Paige Benjamin, Esq. PAIGE BENJAMIN ATTORNEY AT LAW PC 470 N University Ave Ste 100 Po Box 1464 Provo, UT 84603 Telephone: (801) 822 9210 E-mail: paigebenjamin@mac.com INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Suits by SIBL Depositors ---------------------------------------------------------- Independent Bank 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 continues to defend class action lawsuits by individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL. Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers. Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a "loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by the policies. However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of litigation and other means. Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. This is complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising from, this case. INGRAM MICRO: Scheiner Refiled Complaint in Del. Chancery Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Ingram Micro Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that plaintiff Scheiner refiled the same complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12380. On March 8, 2016, a putative stockholder class action suit captioned Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc. et al., 30-2016-00839447- CU-SL-CXC CXC, was filed in the Superior Court in Orange County, California. The complaint names as defendants Ingram Micro, its directors, Tianjin Tianhai and Merger Subsidiary. The complaint asserts that Ingram Micro's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in negotiating and approving the merger agreement, by agreeing to supposedly unfair deal protection devices and by allegedly acting in a self- interested manner. The complaint also generally alleges that Tianjin Tianhai, Ingram Micro and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted such purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification and injunctive relief blocking consummation of the merger. Ingram Micro and the other defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. On May 17, 2016, the plaintiff requested that his California lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. On May 25, 2016, plaintiff Scheiner refiled essentially the same complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12380. Ingram Micro believes this action is without merit. ITC HOLDINGS: Court Eyes March 2017 Completion of Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Poland state court issued a scheduling order, which, among other things, requires the parties to complete discovery by March 10, 2017, and sets a trial date for June 5, 2017. On February 9, 2016, Fortis, FortisUS, Merger Sub and ITC Holdings entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into ITC Holdings, as a result of which ITC Holdings will become a subsidiary of FortisUS (the "Merger"). During the second quarter of 2016, the shareholders of Fortis and the shareholders of ITC Holdings approved and adopted the Merger Agreement at separately held special meetings. Following the announcement of the Merger with Fortis, Inc., four putative state class action lawsuits have been filed by purported shareholders of ITC Holdings on behalf of a purported class of ITC Holdings shareholders. Initially, the four actions (Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al., Harvey Siegelman v. Joseph L. Welch, et al., Alan Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch, et al.) were filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan. The complaints name as defendants a combination of ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis Inc. ("Fortis"), FortisUS Inc. ("FortisUS") and Element Acquisition Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that (1) ITC Holdings' directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger Agreement (defined below in Note 12), (including, but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, care and independence), (2) ITC Holdings' directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder value and claims that the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (3) a combination of ITC Holdings, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek class action certification and a variety of relief including, among other things, enjoining defendants from completing the proposed Merger, unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The Siegelman case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 22, 2016. On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an order directing that the related cases be consolidated under the caption In re ITC Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On April 8, 2016, Poland filed an amended complaint to add derivative claims on behalf of ITC Holdings. On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al. The federal complaint names the same defendants (plus FortisUS), asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the state court cases. On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The amended complaint dropped Fortis US, Fortis and Merger Sub as defendants and added claims alleging that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, filed with the SEC in connection with the special meeting of shareholders to approve the Merger Agreement, is allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omits material facts that are necessary to render it non- misleading. Another lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan captioned Harold Severance v. Joseph L. Welch et al. against the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub, asserting the same general allegations and seeking the same type of relief as Guerra. On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch, et al. With the exception of Fortis, the federal complaint names the same defendants and asserts the same general allegations as the other federal complaints. On June 8, 2016, the state court denied a motion for summary disposition filed by ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors. ITC Holdings voluntarily made supplemental disclosures related to the Merger in response to certain allegations, which are set forth in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 13, 2016. Nothing in those supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth therein. On July 6, 2016, the federal actions were voluntarily dismissed by the federal plaintiffs. The federal plaintiffs reserved the right to make certain other claims, and ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors reserved the right to oppose any such claim. On July 8, 2016, the plaintiffs in Poland filed a motion for class certification. On July 13, 2016, ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors filed their respective answers to the amended complaint in Poland. On July 19, 2016, the Poland state court issued a scheduling order, which, among other things, requires the parties to complete discovery by March 10, 2017, and sets a trial date for June 5, 2017. On July 25, 2016, the Poland state court issued an order allowing a new plaintiff, Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, to intervene in the Poland case. "We believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future," the Company said. J&R SCHUGEL: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome Ratliff Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J&R Schugel Trucking, Inc., Case No. 20 16- CH-09931 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 28, 2016), asserts that the Defendants failed to provide required disclosures prior to procuring background reports on applicants and employees. J&R Schugel Trucking, Inc. owns and operates a trucking and transportation located at 2026 North Broadway Street, New Ulm, Minnesota 56073. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Dominick Larry, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com nlarry@edelson.com - and - Scott A. Kamber, Esq. KAMBER LAW LLC 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com - and - Jennifer L. Duffy, Esq. KAMBERLA W LLP 425 15th Street, Suite 3459 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 714-9779 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: jduffy@kamberlaw.com JDK MANAGEMENT: "Sexton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------- Liana Sexton, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. JDK Management Company, L.P. and JDK Management Company, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01594-JEJ (M.D. Penn., August 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate Quaker Steak & Lube restaurants in Pennsylvania and Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com KIMBERLY-CLARK: Sold Defective Microcool Medical Gowns, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Kleenex parent company Kimberly-Clark Corp. aggressively marketed defective medical gowns during the 2014 U.S. Ebola crisis, a shareholder claims in Manhattan court. The lawsuit alleges that board members and executive officers of the corporation lied to shareholders during the 2014 Ebola crisis, concealing the fact the company was selling defective Microcool medical gowns when the virus had drastically increased demand. The derivative complaint was filed August 2, by Margaret C. Richardson, trustee of the Survivors Trust Dated 6/12/84 for the benefit of the H&M Richardson Revocable Trust. Kimberly-Clark Corp. owns the health and hygiene brands Kleenex, Scott, Huggies, Pull-Ups, Kotex and Depend, occupying the number one and number two product-share positions in 80 countries. Kimberly-Clark entered into a spin-off agreement in 2014 with Halyard Health Inc., under which Halyard is obligated to indemnify Kimberly-Clark in legal proceedings and other liabilities. In August 2014, the World Health Organization designated the outbreak of the Ebola virus as a public health emergency of international concern. Growing awareness of the epidemic sparked increased demand for personal protective equipment such as eye shields, face masks and disposable gowns. On May 1 of this year, "60 Minutes" reported that Kimberly-Clark and Halyard had knowingly provided defective surgical gowns to U.S. workers at the height of the Ebola crisis. Anderson Cooper interviewed Bernard Vezeau, Microcool's global strategic marketing director, who said that "the company went into high gear to sell the product" despite knowing that "the gowns were not consistently meeting industry standards." Vezeau described the Ebola-period marketing as "a full court press to drive Microcool sales" that encouraged customers "to have at least 8 to 12 weeks of product on hand," the complaint states. In the interview, according to Tuesday's lawsuit, Vezeau described the Microcool gowns that were being recommended for use as having issues with Ebola leaking, sleeves falling off and ties falling off. "They didn't tell the public. They didn't tell the FDA. They didn't tell physicians. They told no one," California attorney Michael Avenatti reportedly said in the "60 Minutes" interview. "They kept selling the gown to the tune of millions of dollars every month." Avenatti is the lead attorney in a California class action suit against Kimberly-Clark and Halyard that seeks $500 million in damages. August 2, lawsuit alleges that Kimberly-Clark "willfully ignored the obvious and pervasive problems being experienced with Kimberly-Clark's internal controls practices and procedures," and the company's failure to remedy those problems "ultimately led to the company becoming the subject of the governmental investigations and subpoenas" described in the suit. A June 2016 shareholder class action suit claimed that after the "60 Minutes" episode, Halyard stock fell $1.21, or 4.3 percent to close at $26.95. Bob Brand, a spokesperson for Kimberly-Clark, declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, but said "the company does stand behind the safety and efficacy of its products. "With more than 58 million sold over the past several years, the Microcool gowns have a strong track record of performance and safety with no indication of harm or injury caused to users of the product," Brand said. "At no time would Kimberly-Clark sell a product it believed would put consumers at risk." August 2, derivative complaint, which does not seek specific damages, includes counts of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Richardson is represented by Curtis V. Trinko in New York City. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Parties in EoTech Suits Agreed to Mediation --------------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that the parties in the EoTech Class Actions have agreed to voluntary mediation in August 2016. In December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action complaints against the Company were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United States District Court of the District of Oregon. The complaints allege that the Company's EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights, and seek monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses based on claims including breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment. These cases have been consolidated into a single, putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In March 2016, two additional putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which assert similar claims against the Company. The Michigan complaints were voluntarily dismissed and subsequently re-filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in May 2016. The Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to these actions and intends to defend against them vigorously. A voluntary mediation between the parties is currently scheduled in August 2016. This mediation may not result in a settlement. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with these matters because the proceedings are in their early stages. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Motion Pending in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consolidated securities class action in New York is pending. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim against the Company to proceed to discovery. Discovery has commenced. On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is pending before the District Court. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 401(k) Plan Class Action Filed -------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that a putative class action was filed on June 24, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored 401(k) plan. The complaint alleges that the Company breached fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by making the Company's stock available as an investment alternative under the plan during a period prior to the disclosure of misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, equitable relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. LAGOON LINENS: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ RACHEL ROSENBERG, as a Shareholder of Lagoon Linens, Inc., Plaintiff, v. RISA MEHL, STUART MEHL, JEREMY MEHL, JACLYN MEHL, SAM MOSKOWITZ, JAY MOSKOWITZ, ELIZABETH MOSKOWITZ, IRV SCHAULEWICZ and LAGOON LINENS INC., 604983/2016 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau County, August 4, 2016), was filed by the Plaintiff as a stockholder of Lagoon Linens, Inc. LAGOON LINENS INC. sells fine linens for the bedroom, bath, and table. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Claude Castro, Esq. CLAUDE CASTRO & ASSC. 545 Fifth Ave. 8th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 810-2710 LIVE NATION: Accrued $16.6MM for Remaining Settlement Costs ----------------------------------------------------------- Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, the Company had accrued $16.6 million, its best estimate of the probable remaining costs associated with the settlement in the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation. On March 18, 2016, all appeals relating to a settlement agreement reached by the plaintiffs and Ticketmaster in respect of a ticketing fees consumer class action litigation matter originally filed in October 2003 against Ticketmaster were dismissed, thus resolving this matter and allowing the implementation of the terms of the settlement. On March 30, 2016, the Company funded a portion of the settlement primarily related to the plaintiffs' attorney fees. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with the matter. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had accrued $16.6 million, its best estimate of the probable remaining costs associated with the settlement, which was recorded in prior years. The calculation of this liability is based in part upon an estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this difference to be material. MARTHA STEWART: Sells Subscribers Data, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia makes millions by selling the names and addresses of subscribers to data miners, Michiganders claim in a federal class action. MASTERCARD INC: Aug. 2016 Status Conference in Interchange Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a district court has scheduled a status conference with all parties to the U.S. Interchange litigation for August 2016. In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble damages. In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement. MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections included a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were adequately represented by counsel in the settlement. The district court has scheduled a status conference with all parties to the litigation for August 2016. Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the class settlement. MasterCard had anticipated that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions. MasterCard has executed settlement agreements with a number of opt-out merchants. MasterCard believes these settlement agreements are not impacted by the ruling of the court of appeals. The defendants have consolidated all of these matters (except for one state court action in New Mexico and a federal court action in Georgia) in front of the same federal district court that approved the merchant class settlement. In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a claim. At this time, it is not clear what actions the remaining opt-out merchants will take following the reversal of the settlement approval. As of June 30, 2016, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $705 million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, MasterCard had $542 million and $541 million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation and classified as restricted cash on its balance sheet. MasterCard believes the reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchants represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters at June 30, 2016. The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and the merchant class litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome. MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to occur. Separately, the objectors filed a motion with the district court in July 2015 to set aside the approval order, contending that the merchant class was inadequately represented and the settlement was insufficient because a counsel for several individual merchant plaintiffs improperly exchanged communications with a defense counsel who at the time was representing MasterCard. That motion is still pending. MASTERCARD INC: Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta Suits Suspended ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta Interchange suits are temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's favor) concerning certain MasterCard rules related to point-of- sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act. The British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs. The Quebec suit was later amended to include the same defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. Additional purported class action complaints have been commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) several of the merchants' claims in the British Columbia case have been allowed to proceed on a class basis, and a trial date has been set for September 2018 (2) the Quebec suit was stayed, but the the parties must provide a timetable for class certification by September 2016 and (3) the Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta suits are temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds. MASTERCARD INC: Supreme Court to Hear ATM Case Arguments in Oct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the ATM Non- Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints, MasterCard expects the U.S. Supreme Court to hear oral arguments from MasterCard and its co-defendants during its next term beginning in October 2016. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non- bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. In March 2016, certain of the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the nondiscrimination rules pending the outcome of the litigation. In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments from MasterCard and its co- defendants in both cases, which MasterCard expects will occur during its next term beginning in October 2016. MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Dismiss Liability Shift Case Due August -------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants in the U.S. Liability Shift Litigation have until early August to file a motion to dismiss. In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that EMVCo, MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover, JCB, China Union Pay and a number of issuing banks engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege the damages would be the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law. Following a June 2016 hearing, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the defendants have until early August 2016 to file a motion to dismiss. MDL 1917: Court Approves $158 Million in Legal Fees --------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco, August 3, awarded $158 million to attorneys representing indirect buyers in a 9-year-long class action on cathode ray tube price-fixing. A long list of plaintiffs sued Toshiba, Samsung, Panasonic and others in 2007 for a 12-year conspiracy to corner the market for cathode ray tubes, used in TVs and other electronics. The attorneys requested $193 million: 33.3 percent of the $577 million settlement approved in July. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found that several factors justified reducing the award to $158 million: 27.5 percent of the settlement. Tigar also awarded $7.6 million in expenses to attorneys and $450,000 in incentives for named plaintiffs. The result achieved for the class is the most important factor in determining attorneys' fees, Tigar wrote in his 20-page ruling. While $577 million is "a large sum of money," Tigar said, it is only 20 percent of the $2.78 billion plaintiffs claimed to have been overcharged for products containing price-fixed tubes. Considering the complexity of the case, the performance of counsel and the risky nature of litigating a major class action, Tigar found it justified to approve slightly more than the Ninth Circuit's benchmark of 25 percent of the settlement fund. Tigar used the lodestar method, a two-step process that involves multiplying billable hours by hourly rates and adjusting it based on case-specific factors. The class attorneys recorded 183,000 billable hours through May 2015, when the settlement was reached. Martin Quinn, special master to help oversee the settlement, found the class attorneys' hourly rates of $350 to $875 were reasonable. Under the settlement, Chunghwa had to pay $10 million; LG Electronics $25 million; Philips electronics $175 million; Panasonic $70 million; Hitachi $28 million; Toshiba $30 million; Samsung $225 million; and Thomson $13.75 million. Two groups of class members who objected to the settlement appealed the settlement approval and attorneys' fees to the Ninth Circuit on August 4. Lead class counsel Mario Alioto, with Trump, Alioto, Trump and Prescott in San Francisco, did not return a phone call seeking comment August 4. In January, Tigar approved a $38 million award for lawyers representing a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in the antitrust case. That award was 30 percent of a $127 million settlement. The case captioned, IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This Order Relates To: ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS Case No. C-07-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.). METHODIST HOSPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Nurses ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert J. Straka, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Methodist Hospital d/b/a Methodist Dallas Medical Center, Methodist Charlton Medical Center, Methodist Mansfield Medical Center, Methodist Richardson Medical Center, Methodist Rehabilitation Hospital, and Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, Case No. 3:16-cv-02192-B (N.D. Tex., July 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly compensate non-exempt nurses for work performed during meal periods. The Defendants operate a chain of hospitals that provide healthcare services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com - and - Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Tsisin" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. The case is titled Ilya Tsisin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04281-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Frederic Block. Monarch Recovery is a premier accounts receivable management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339 0856 Facsimile: (347) 244 7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com MORAN TOWING: "Turnage" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Turnage v. Moran Towing Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02714-JKB (D. Md., July 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Fair Labor Standards Act. Moran Towing Corporation is engaged in the business of ship docking, marine transportation, and offshore contract towing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Spicer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 MV TRANSPORTATION: Violates FLSA OT Provision, "Jordan" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEVORN JORDAN, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others similarly-situated v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., and MV CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION, INC., and MICHELAIRE PHANOR, an individual, Case No. 513422/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 3, 2016), is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants' alleged violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. MV Transportation is a California corporation operating in the state of New York as a foreign business corporation, with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. The Defendants own and operate a business providing transportation services for elderly and disabled individuals in the New York City area, among other regions in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Declines to Dismiss Scholarship Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. refused on August 5, to dismiss an antitrust class action challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association's cap on scholarship money to college athletes. Under the cap, Division I college football and basketball players may receive cash compensation up to the cost of attendance, "untethered" to educational expenses. The athletes say the NCAA and its conferences violate federal antitrust law by imposing the cap and that schools would offer more generous scholarships to attract players without it. The cap also unfairly bars them from earning money playing sports, from which the NCAA receives multibillion-dollar payments from TV networks and advertisers, they say. At oral argument, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken for the Northern District of California indicated that she would dismiss the suit based on O'Bannon v. NCAA, in which the Ninth Circuit held last September that member schools need not compensate athletes above the cost of attendance. "It was tried and it's the law," Wilken said at the hearing. "If I were to rule as I think I probably will have to, an injunction couldn't include payment higher than the cost of attendance untethered to educational expenses." But plaintiffs' counsel Jeffrey Kessler told Wilken that the players were also challenging rules prohibiting compensation for education-related expenses in addition to the cap on cash compensation. Kessler argued the students are seeking education- related compensation like tuition reimbursement for graduate school and work-study payments, which they had not addressed in their complaint. Kessler told Wilken the plaintiffs would amend their complaint to include the new claims. "As long as you provide for [compensation] tethered to educational objectives, it will not dispose our case," Kessler said. That seemed to sway Wilken, who said in her 6-page ruling on August 5, that "the Ninth Circuit's decision in O'Bannon limits the types of relief plaintiffs may seek but it does not provide a basis upon which a judgment on the merits can be rendered." "O'Bannon simply forecloses one type of relief plaintiffs previously sought: cash compensation untethered to educational expenses," she added. "We are very pleased with this ruling by the court, which permits the case to move forward at full speed," Kessler said in an email. "The next steps are the completion of discovery and then a trial, where we hope to empower the schools and conferences to provide the increased benefits that these great athletes deserve." NCAA attorney Jeffrey Mishkin criticized the plaintiffs' claims for education-related compensation as "micromanaging" in an area where the Ninth Circuit had given the NCAA flexibility. "This isn't about small issues of what is and isn't an appropriate educational expense," Mishkin told Wilken. "These small incremental issues are not for an antitrust court to decide." Kessler is with Winston & Strawn, and Mishkin is with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, both of New York. Mishkin could not be reached for comment late August 5. The case captioned, IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MARTIN JENKINS, et al., PlaintiffS, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants., No. 14-md-2541 CW (N.D. Cal.). NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Furniss" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC FURNISS 16426 Mesa Point Dr. Houston, Texas 77095, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P. c/o C T Corporation System 1999 Bryan Street, STE. 900 Dallas, Texas 75201, (S.D. Ohio, July 14, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. is an oilfield services company, providing drilling fluid products and services to oil wells throughout the United States and the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com - and - Todd Slobin, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net NATURAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Securities Action Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Natural Health Trends Corp. 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's motion to dismiss a securities class action remains pending. In January 2016, two purported securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and its top executives. On March 29, 2016, the court consolidated the purported securities class actions, appointed two Lead Plaintiffs, Messrs. Dao and Juan, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as co-Lead Counsel for the purported class in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 29, 2016. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng, and Timothy S. Davidson, and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Chris T. Sharng, Timothy S. Davidson, and George K. Broady. The consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the legality of its business operations in China, including running an allegedly illegal multi- level marketing business. The consolidated complaint seeks an indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs. On June 15, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the consolidated complaint. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Park Rangers' Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that the Second Circuit revived a class action in Manhattan, August 2, by New York City park rangers who want to be paid for the time spent getting into and out of their uniforms. Current and former Assistant Urban Park Rangers employed by New York City's Department of Parks & Recreation filed a collective action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including the Department's refusal to compensate them for time spent putting on and taking off required uniforms. The district court (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge) granted partial summary judgment for the defendants and, without further proceedings, closed the case. "We conclude that the district court erred both in granting partial summary judgment and in closing the case while several claims remained unresolved. The judgment of the district court is therefore vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings," the Second Circuit said. The case is, Henry Perez, Baselice Ralph, Juan Bayron, Jerry Cordero, Ronald Eason, Donald Koonce, Joseph Oro, Ruben Rios, Jr., Pedro Rosado, and Derek G. Walther, on 10 behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The City of New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio, The New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, and Mitchell J. Silver, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Parks & Recreation, Defendants-Appellees, Docket No. 15-315 (2nd Cir.). NINTENDO: Homeowners Sue Over "Pokemon Go" Game ----------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that makers of the popular "Pokemon Go" game plop virtual creatures on private property without permission and encourage players to trespass on private land, property owners claim in a federal class action. After taking the world by storm in the 1990s, the Japanese video game is back with a vengeance for a new generation and nostalgic millenials. Now an application for smartphones and other mobile devices, the "augmented reality" game uses GPS and camera functions, setting goals for players to catch virtual characters in the real world. San Francisco-based software developer Niantic released "Pokemon Go" on July 6, and Jeffery Marder claims in a July 29 complaint that he had five people knock on the door of his West Orange, New Jersey, home in the first week, asking for permission to "catch" Pokemon in his backyard. "Pokemon Go" designates GPS coordinates on private properties as "Pokestops" and "Pokemon Gyms" where players can pick up in-game items, according to the complaint. But Marder says the game makers failed to consider the consequences of "populating the real world with virtual Pokemon characters" without obtaining consent from property owners. The 16-page filing cites reports about of people inappropriately playing the game at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and at a cemetery in Alabama, prompting complaints. Earlier this month, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Poland banned people from playing "Pokemon Go" on its grounds, calling the behavior "disrespectful" at a site memorializing the deaths of more than 1 million Jews killed in extermination camps during the Holocaust. Marder's complaint notes that the exceedingly popular "Pokemon Go" was downloaded more than 23 million times and earned more than $35 million in revenue as of July 23. He says the game makers profit from the unauthorized use of people's private properties and encourage millions of players to make "unwanted incursions" onto private land. The complaint accuses the game makers of nuisance and unjust enrichment. Marder seeks to certify a class of all property owners or abutting property owners in the United States who had "Pokemon Go" designate GPS coordinates on their land or abutting land without consent. Aside from class certification, Marder also seeks an injunction and damages, disgorgement or other monetary relief. He is represented Jennifer Pafti of Pomerantz in Beverly Hills. Pafti has not returned a phone call seeking comment on the lawsuit. In addition to Niantic, Marder's federal class action also names as defendants Nintendo and The Pokemon Co. Representatives for Nintendo and Niantic Inc. have not returned emails seeking comment. Niantic also faces opposition in New York where Gov. Andrew Cuomo on August 1, directed state authorities to prevent nearly 3,000 registered sex offenders from playing "Pokemon Go" while on parole. In addition to requiring sex offenders to divulge their home addresses and internet identifiers, including email addresses and screen names, the New York Department of Corrections and Community Services is avoidance of "Pokemon Go" a condition of supervised release from state prison. According to a report by the Associated Press, "the division has sent about 52,000 records related to 18,544 sex offenders since 2008 that have been used to remove names from social media sites." NORTHERN TRUST: $46.5MM Charge Recorded Over ERISA Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Northern Trust Corporation 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 in the second quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a $46.5 million charge in connection with the settlement of a class action lawsuit. A number of participants in Northern Trust's securities lending program, which is associated with its asset servicing business, have commenced either individual lawsuits or purported class actions in which they claim, among other things, that Northern Trust failed to exercise prudence in the investment management of the collateral received from the borrowers of the securities, resulting in losses associated with the 2008 financial crisis that they seek to recover. The cases assert various contractual, statutory and common law claims, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty under common law and under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In 2013, Northern Trust recorded a $19.2 million charge in connection with a settlement to resolve certain claims related to two of these lawsuits. In the second quarter of 2016, Northern Trust recorded a $46.5 million charge in connection with a settlement to resolve substantially all of the remaining claims. This settlement is not final as it requires further documentation, signed agreements and court approval. One individual lawsuit related to this matter is not subject to the settlement and remains pending. NPAS INC: Faces "Riezes" Suit in Eastern District New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against NPAS, Inc. The case is captioned Esti Riezes, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. NPAS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04277 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016). The Plaintiff appears pro se. NPC INTERNATIONAL: "Gregorius" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Gregorius, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00593-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. NPC International, Inc. operates as a franchisee of Pizza Hut and Wendy's restaurants in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 4423 Del Prado Boulevard S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com OKLAHOMA: "Dennis" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to N.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------ LaMarr Raymondo Dennis, And Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mary Fallin, Oklahoma Governor, the Defendant, Case No. CF-01-02301, was removed from Tulsa Cty. Dist. Ct., to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00507-TCK-TLW to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Terence Kern. Oklahoma is a midwestern U.S. state whose diverse landscape includes the Great Plains, mountains, lakes and forests. The Plaintiff appears pro se. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Court Permits Filing of Wage Class, PAGA Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware temporarily allowed the class claim in the amount of $5,000,000 and the PAGA claim in the amount of $100,000 for purposes of voting on Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.'s plan. Tamaree Beeney and Charles Pfeiffer sought to file claims against the PacSun estates for alleged violations of California wage and hour laws, which had been asserted prepetition in separate (but subsequently consolidated) lawsuits. Judge Silverstein has previously permitted the filing of a class proof of claim covering a period of 8 years and 7 months -- from March 18, 2007, through October 10, 2016. The judge will not permit the filing of a class proof of claim for the period after October 10, 2016. Judge Silverstein, however, ordered that a second bar date notice must go to employees who worked in PacSun's California retail locations from October 11, 2016 through February 26, 2016. A full-text copy of Judge Silverstein's August 8, 2016 order is available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb16-10882-713.pdf Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Debtor, represented by Joseph M. Barry, Esq. -- jbarry@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, David M. Guess, Esq. -- dguess@ktbslaw.com -- Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Sasha M. Gurvitz, Esq. -- SGurvitz@ktbslaw.com -- Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Maris J. Kandestin, Esq. -- mkandestin@ycst.com -- Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Laura Monroe, Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott, Michael R. Nestor, Esq. -- mnestor@ycst.com -- Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Shane M. Reil, Esq. -- sreil@ycst.com -- Young Conaway, David M. Stern, Esq. -- dstern@ktbslaw.com -- Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Michael L. Tuchin, Esq. -- mtuchin@ktbslaw.com -- Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern, LLP, Jonathan M. Weiss, Esq. -- JWeiss@ktbslaw.com -- Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP. U.S. Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Juliet M. Sarkessian, U.S. Trustee's Office. Prime Clerk, Claims Agent, represented by Benjamin Joseph Steele, Prime Clerk LLC. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor Committee, represented by Justin R. Alberto, Esq. -- jalberto@bayardlaw.com - - Bayard, P.A., Gregory Joseph Flasser, Esq. -- gflasser@bayardlaw.com -- Bayard, P.A., Cathy Hershcopf, Esq. -- chershcopf@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jay R. Indyke, Esq. -- jindyke@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Seth Van Aalten, Esq. -- svanaalten@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. About Pacific Sunwear Founded in 1982 in Newport Beach, California as a surf shop, Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. operates in the teen and young adult retail sector, selling men's and womens apparel, accessories, and footwear. The Company went public in 1993 (NASDAQ: PSUN), and peaked with 965 stores in 2006. At present, the Company has approximately 593 retail locations nationwide under the names "Pacific Sunwear" and "PacSun," which stores are principally in mall locations. The Company has 2,000 full-time workers. Through its ecommerce business, the Company operates an e-commerce site at http://www.pacsun.com/ Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., and two affiliated debtors each filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 16-10882) on April 7, 2016. The cases are pending before the Honorable Laurie Selber Silverstein. The Debtors sought Chapter 11 protection with a Chapter 11 plan that would convert debt into equity. The Debtors tapped Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, and Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP as attorneys; FTI Consulting, Inc., as financial advisor; Guggenheim Securities, LLC, as investment banker; and Prime Clerk LLC as claims and noticing agent. Andrew Vara, acting U.S. trustee for Region 3, on April 19 appointed seven creditors of Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., to serve on the official committee of unsecured creditors. The official committee of unsecured creditors retained Cooley LLP and Bayard, P.A. as counsel; and Province Inc. as its financial advisor. PANERA BREAD: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2016, that the settlement of four class action cases remains pending. On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. In addition, several other purported class action lawsuits based on similar claims and seeking similar damages were filed against the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California by Clara Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by Tanner Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager. On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Understanding contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of a definitive settlement agreement are under negotiation and such agreement is subject to the final approval by two California Superior Courts. The Company maintained an appropriate reserve in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 28, 2016. PHILIP MORRIS: Opposed Motion for New Trial in "Larsen" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Altria 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 Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") has opposed plaintiffs' motion for a new trial in the Larsen class action case. In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim, which the court denied in June 2015. Upon retrial, in April 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA. In May 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which PM USA opposed in June 2016. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "O'Brien" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is captioned MICHAEL O'BRIEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04634-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., August 1, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Susan D. Wigenton. Portfolio Recovery is an American debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen H. Chulsky, Esq. 375 Passaic Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net - and - Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com PSCU INC: "Davis" Labor Suit Transferred from Mich. to Fla. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Case LARRY DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PSCU INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Case 8:16-cv-02079-CEH-JSS, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July 20, 2016. The case alleges willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides financial services to credit unions including operating four call centers in the United States. PSCU is a Credit Union Service Organization (CUSO) -- https://pscu.com/about/our-difference.html -- that was formed by credit unions to provide services to credit unions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4044 Fax: (248) 746-4001 E-mail: npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Sue in Pennsylvania Over Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Qlik Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on June 9, 2016 and June 15, 2016, two putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Qlik against Qlik, its directors, Parent and Merger Sub in Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, captioned Solak v. Golden, et al, Case No. 2016-005036 (the "Solak Action"), and Willems v. Qlik Technologies Inc., et al, Case No. 2016-005249 (the "Willems Action"). The Willems Action was also filed against Thoma Bravo. Both lawsuits generally allege that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize the value of Qlik to its stockholders and agreeing to unfair terms. They further allege that Qlik, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Willems Action also alleges aiding and abetting by Thoma Bravo. Plaintiffs in both actions seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the Merger, and attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, the Solak Action seeks rescission of the Merger and/or rescissory damages. On June 2, 2016, Qlik entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Project Alpha Holding, LLC ("Parent") and Project Alpha Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by an affiliate of private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo, LLC ("Thoma Bravo"). The Company is not able to estimate the amount or range of any loss for certain contingencies related to this matter, if any, at this time. QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Sue in Delaware Over Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Qlik Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on July 12, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of Qlik against the Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Charles v. Golden, et al, Case No. 12552-VCS. The action generally alleges that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger by failing to disclose material information in the Definitive Proxy Statement. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the Merger and attorneys' fees and costs. On June 2, 2016, Qlik entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Project Alpha Holding, LLC ("Parent") and Project Alpha Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by an affiliate of private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo, LLC ("Thoma Bravo"). On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite proceedings. The Court scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for July 25, 2016. On July 22, 2016, Qlik filed with the SEC supplemental disclosures in a Proxy Supplement to the Definitive Proxy Statement. The same day, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to expedite. That afternoon, Plaintiff informed the Court that his claims had been mooted and that the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to expedite may be removed from the Court's calendar. On July 22, 2016 and July 26, 2016, two more putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported stockholders of Qlik against the Board of Directors, Thoma Bravo, LLC, Project Alpha Holding, LLC, Project Alpha Merger Corp., and Elliott Associates, L.P., captioned Garagarza v. Thoma Bravo, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12586-VCS, and Laborers Pension Fund v. Thoma Bravo, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12597- . Both actions generally allege that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger by, among other things, failing to maximize the value of Qlik to its stockholders, failing to ensure a fair process, and failing to disclose all material information in the Definitive Proxy Statement. Both actions further allege that Thoma Bravo, LLC, Project Alpha Holding, LLC, Project Alpha Merger Corp., and Elliott Associates, L.P. aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs in these actions seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin the consummation of the Merger, rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company is not able to estimate the amount or range of any loss for certain contingencies related to this matter, if any, at this time. QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Jeweltex Stockholder Suit -------------------------------------------------- Qlik Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on July 13, 2016 and July 20, 2016, two putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Qlik against Qlik and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned Jeweltex Manufacturing Inc. Retirement Plan, et al v. Qlik Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 16-3800 (the "Jeweltex Action"), and Walker v. Qlik Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 16-3903 (the "Walker Action"). The Walker Action additionally names Thoma Bravo, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants. On June 2, 2016, Qlik entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Project Alpha Holding, LLC ("Parent") and Project Alpha Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by an affiliate of private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo, LLC ("Thoma Bravo"). Both lawsuits generally allege that Qlik and members of the Board of Directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that members of the Board of Directors violated 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed Merger by failing to disclose material information in the Definitive Proxy Statement. The Walker Action further alleges that Thoma Bravo violated 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed Merger by failing to disclose material information in the Definitive Proxy Statement. Plaintiffs in both actions seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company is not able to estimate the amount or range of any loss for certain contingencies related to this matter, if any, at this time. QUAKER OATS: Consumer Class Suits Moved to California ----------------------------------------------------- Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Quaker Oats may battle in California claims that it overcharges consumers and hurts maple syrup makers by falsely claiming that its oatmeal contains maple syrup, a federal judge ruled. Since March, plaintiffs across several states, starting in California, have sued the Quaker Oats Co. in four federal putative class actions, alleging the company prints misinformation on its Maple & Brown Sugar oatmeal packaging. Barbara Gates filed one such suit in Newark, N.J. on April 7, similarly claiming that the oatmeal actually does not contain the "premium ingredients" maple syrup or maple sugar. "Maple syrup contains an abundant amount of naturally occurring minerals such as calcium, manganese, potassium, and magnesium," the complaint states. "It is also a source of beneficial antioxidants that have shown to help prevent cancer, support the immune system, lower blood pressure and slow the effects of aging." Though the oatmeal "prominently displays the words 'Maple & Brown Sugar' on its packaging along with images of a pitcher of maple syrup," it does not contain the premium ingredients, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs say they have thus had to pay premium prices for sub-par products. Plus, the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers' Association and over ten other industry groups have allegedly said the misbranding harms real maple syrup manufacturers by letting "cheaper products" compete with those actually containing premium maple syrup. The products at issue include these Quaker maple & brown sugar instant oatmeal varieties: High Fiber, Gluten Free, Lower Sugar, Weight Control, and Organic. Gates' five-count complaint alleges violations of the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act; as well as that of Illinois; New Jersey, D.C., Illinois, and other states' consumer fraud laws; and breach of express warranty under New Jersey law. After the Chicago class moved to transfer and consolidate all the lawsuits in their court, Gates followed suit, calling the cases "nearly identical." The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the Chicago plaintiffs' motion, but suggested that the parties seek "transfer of the later-filed cases under the 'first-to-file rule.'" The Chicago-based Quaker Oats, in turn, moved to transfer the suits to California. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman granted Quaker's motion August 3. "Plaintiff's claims involve the same parties -- the putative class members and defendant Quaker," Hillman wrote. "Plaintiff's claims involve the same issues of law, including whether certain claims are preempted by federal law. Moreover, plaintiff previously supported the transfer of her case as part of a [multidistrict litigation] MDL because 'centralization is necessary in order to avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.' Those considerations have not disappeared simply because the request for an MDL was denied. Finally, plaintiff has not opposed Quaker's motion to transfer, which evidences a tacit concession to all of these points." Finding that "the public and private factors for transfer of venue, together with the principles of the first-filed rule, all warrant the transfer of this action to the Central District of California," the judge transferred the suits. Attorneys with Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga in Newark, N.J. for Quaker, and Gates' attorney, Stephen Denittis with Denittis Osefchen in Marlton, N.J., did not return requests for comment emailed August 4. The case captioned, BARBARA GATES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Defendant., 1:16-cv-01944-NLH-JS (D. N.J.). Counsel to Plaintiff: Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq. Denittis Osefchen, PC 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Counsel to Defendant: Liza M. Walsh, Esq. Selina Miriam Ellis, Esq. Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP One Riverfront Plaza 1037 Raymond Blvd., 6th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 - and - Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq. Jason R. Meltzer Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 - and - Matthew A. Hoffman, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 RAVAGH PERSIAN: "Rivera-Raymundo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Rivera-Raymundo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ravagh Persian Grill, Inc., Ravagh Restaurant Corp., Masoud Tehrani, Soheil Tazari, and Monireh Tehrani, Case No. 1:16- cv-06032-VSB (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 11E 30th Street New York, NY 10016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yesy Sanchez, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3510 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Telephone: (718) 777-0400 Facsimile: (718) 777-0599 E-mail: contact@pnlawyers.com RIAL DE MINAS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Idaly Martinez on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rial De Minas, Inc., Rial De Minas III, Inc., Rial De Minas IV, Inc., Juan Luevanos, Maria Luevanos, and Melissa Luevanos, Case No. 1:16-cv-01947 (D. Col., August 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Mexican restaurants in Denver, Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE 595 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 Facsimile: (303) 957-5754 E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com RIT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Padgett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIT Technologies Ltd., Amit Mantsur, Yossi Ben Harosh, Eran Erov, and Motti Hania, Case No. 2:16-cv-04579 (D.N.J., July 28, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. RIT Technologies Ltd. provides intelligent infrastructure management ("IIM") and indoor optical wireless technology solutions worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Criminal Report Can't Be Used in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a report filed in a criminal case against Scotts Miracle-Gro for selling poisonous bird feed cannot be used against the company in a consumer class action, the Sixth Circuit ruled. "Scotts failed to disclose that its bird seed contained pesticides that were known to be highly toxic to birds," the 2012 class- action lawsuit states. "Instead, defendant knowingly sold millions of units of its defective and toxic bird feed products, knowing the products would be widely used to feed birds at purchasers' homes, in back yards and in wild and natural environments across the United States." The products in question were marketed under names including Country Pride, Morning Song, Scotts Songbird Selections and Scotts Wild Bird Food, according to the complaint. The class claims that Scotts started adding the insecticides Storcide II and Actellic 5E to its bird feed in November 2005 to prevent insect infestation of feed grains during storage. They claim those insecticides were not authorized for use by the Environmental Protection Agency and that the EPA specifically warns that Storcide II is extremely toxic to birds, fish and other wildlife. The government filed a criminal action against Scotts Miracle-Gro in 2012 for treating 73 million units of wild bird food with insecticide that is actually toxic to birds. Scotts pleaded guilty to pesticide misuse, and agreed to pay a penalty of $4 million and make a charitable donation of $500,000. However, the plaintiffs in the consumer class action cannot have access to a presentence report from Scotts' criminal case, the Sixth Circuit ruled August 4, after grilling attorneys at oral arguments in April. Scotts inadvertently produced unredacted copies of its objections to the report from the criminal case in the course of discovery, and requested that the plaintiffs destroy the unredacted documents. Judge Richard Suhrheinrich, writing for the three-judge panel, agreed with Scotts that the consumers showed they have no "special need" for this disclosure. "Disclosure of objection letters could thus, in some circumstances, threaten government informants and undermine criminal investigations," the 24-page opinion states. "Routine disclosure of objections could very well stifle parties' willingness to object to the contents of the [presentence report] at all." The consumers have not shown that their need for this information overrides the policy concerns that advocate for keeping presentence reports and objections thereto confidential, the Cincinnati-based panel ruled. "The information plaintiffs seek is available from multiple other sources in addition to the sentencing transcript. Plaintiffs may retain their own experts to comment on the toxicity of the bird seed, depose Scotts's experts and employees on this subject, or acquire the underlying documents that the government and Scotts relied upon to reach the conclusions contained in their objections," Suhrheinrich said. The case is, In re: MORNING SONG BIRD FOOD LITIGATION, No. 15-3943 (6th Cir.). SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Narrows Claims in "Anderson" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Franciso, August 1, dismissed only some claims in a putative class action against SeaWorld's treatment of orcas, gave plaintiffs until Aug. 22 to amend them, and set a case management conference for Oct. 7. The case captioned, MARC ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW (N.D. Cal.). SEI INVESTMENTS: Asks Court to Clarify Class Definition ------------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Company 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 SEI has asked the Court to clarify the class definition because the one remaining claim in the action -- secondary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law -- requires proof that Stanford Trust Company sold or offered to sell securities. SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act. Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against SEI and SPTC and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank. The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the petitions. In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class certification. After the Court held a hearing on class certification, it certified a class composed of persons who purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009. SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the class certification judgments. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File a First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition and add claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by seeking dismissal of the action. On March 11, 2013, the newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to the Middle District of Louisiana. SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of the jurisdictional issue. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel transferred the matter against SEI to the Northern District of Texas. On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. On June 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on June 24, 2015 set a briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC's motion challenging the Louisiana court's decision to certify a class, which motion was filed on July 15, 2015. SEI and SPTC filed their answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is now pending in the Northern District of Texas. On July 15, 2015, SEI and SPTC also filed motions seeking reconsideration of the District Court's June 17 denial of the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, seeking leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal of certain elements of the denial, as well as a motion seeking partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to claims brought under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On September 22, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion for reconsideration of the June 17 denial of the motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss, or certify for interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before the District Court are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being "all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". SEI has asked the Court to clarify the class definition because the one remaining claim in the action -- secondary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law -- requires proof that Stanford Trust Company sold or offered to sell securities. In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no material activity has taken place since that date. While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits. SOLARCITY CORP: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Jose dismissed with prejudice Tai Jan Bao's amended shareholder class action against SolarCity Corp. Lead Plaintiff James Webb and Plaintiff Tai Jan Bao seek to represent a putative class of investors who purchased SolarCity securities between December 12, 2012 and March 18, 2014 ("Class Period"). Plaintiffs allege that, during this time, Defendants manipulated an accounting formula to "portray the illusion of profitability" by shifting overhead costs from sales, where they would be recognized immediately, to leases, where they amortized over a 20-year period. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants inflated a ratio used to allocate overhead costs to leases ("burden ratio") by including the prior period's overhead costs in the numerator, but excluding the prior period's direct costs from the denominator. This formula change did not affect the company's allocation of direct costs between sales and leases, but did cause an inflated portion of overhead costs to go to leases. A copy of the Court's Aug. 9 Order is available at http://goo.gl/YHg1S5from Leagle.com. The case captioned, TAI JAN BAO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOLARCITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., Case No. 14-cv-01435-BLF (N.D. Cal.). SONS ELECTRICAL: Faces Suit by Foremen, Apprentices Under NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BAEZ, DELCTER BERNAL and LUIS FORTUNA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SALVA TORE CAMPISI & SONS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC., JOSEPH CAMPISI, PETER CAMPISI, SALVATORE CAMPISI and SALVATORE CAMPISI JR., INDEX NO. 513561/2016 (N.Y. Super., County of Kings, August 4, 2016), alleges violation of the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs are former foremen and apprentices who worked for Defendants on various commercial and residential construction projects in the State of New York. SONS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC. is an electrical contracting company that provides electrical installation and repair services on various commercial and residential construction projects in the State of New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew P. Madzelan, Esq. SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 420-9300 SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Class Suit v. IOS et al. Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu 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 all proceedings in a class action lawsuit have been stayed pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"). In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. SUPERVALU INC: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Suit Over C&S Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Supervalu 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 in the class action lawsuit related to a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., the hearing on class certification occurred on July 19, 2016. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non- arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other distribution centers. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of retailers in the Midwest and the Company filed its response on May 6, 2016. The hearing on class certification occurred on July 19, 2016. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SUPERVALU INC: Cross-Appeal Filed in Customer Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu 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 in the case, In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, the Company has filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and the Company filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, the Company filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. SUTTLES LOGGING: "Hinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES HINSON, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, v. SUTTLES LOGGING, INC., Case No. 7:16-cv-00287 (W.D. Tex., August 3, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and other damages owed to workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Headquartered in Midland, Texas, Suttles provides a variety of geological services, including computerized mud logging, digital/electronic well data acquisition, computerized gas monitoring, digital mud sample pictures, Web site data delivery, and geological consulting. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, 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 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com TD BANK: "Carberry" Suit in N.J. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie J. Carberry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T.D. Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-04600 (D.N.J., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. T.D. Bank, N.A. is one of the ten largest banks in the United States with well over $130 billion in assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and - Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Faces Canyon Capital Suit Over IPO ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Terraform Global raised $675 million through a deceptive initial public offering, but shares sank to $7.38 from $15 apiece when the truth came out, investors claim, echoing existing class actions in San Mateo County Superior Court. The case is, Canyon Capital Advisors v. TerraForm Global; JPMorgan Securities; Barclays Capital. TEXAS: Faces Inmates' Suit Over Mental Health Service ----------------------------------------------------- Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class action says that the state of Texas forces mentally ill suspects deemed incompetent for trial to wait in county jails instead of being placed in mental health facilities for proper treatment. Disability Rights Texas along with three individuals representing a class of approximately 280 incompetent detainees sued Texas Department of State Health Services commissioner Dr. John Hellerstedt in Federal Court on July 29. The group pursues "legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies" for Texans with disabilities, including those with mental illness. According to the complaint, "When an individual charged with a crime is found to be incompetent to stand trial, Texas law requires that the Texas Department of State Health Services provide the incompetent detainee with treatment aimed at restoring the individual to competency." This specialized competency-restoration treatment can only be provided in a state mental health facility or in a community-based outpatient program, under certain circumstances and with proper supervision. But the department "routinely fails or refuses to provide competency-restoration treatment within a reasonable period of time from the date of the state criminal-court order requiring such treatment," the group says in its complaint. This means that criminal defendants found incompetent are put on a waiting list until a bed at a mental health facility becomes available. Such individuals may wait in jail for weeks or even months until the department accepts custody. "These incompetent detainees -- despite being presumed innocent -- end up being confined in jail prior to adjudication and pending treatment longer than if they had been found guilty of the alleged crime," the group says in its complaint. "As a result of the delays caused by the department, individuals with mental illness languish in county jails without appropriate mental health treatment until a bed becomes available at a department mental health facility. "Defendant has a duty to accept and treat mentally incompetent detainees within a reasonable period of time, which must be measured in days, not weeks or months," the group says. The complaint describes the experiences of the three named individual plaintiffs who were each found incompetent to stand trial for their criminal cases. On Feb. 17, Joseph Ward was found incompetent to stand trial in Harris County and ordered to be committed to a mental health facility to attain competency. But the department did not allow the county to transfer Ward to a state mental health facility, so he remained in the county jail. Ward has been waiting to be transferred to a mental health facility for competency treatment for over 22 weeks, the complaint says. Plaintiffs Isaac Lemelle and Michael Anderson were similarly found incompetent to stand trial for their respective criminal cases in Travis County. The department would not allow the county to transfer either one to a state mental health facility, resulting in their continued confinement in the county jail before they could receive competency treatment. This amounted to a 21-week wait for Lemelle and a 13-week wait for Anderson, according to the complaint. And county jails are unable to provide competency-restoration services to those found incompetent to stand trial, the class argues. "Jails are not designed to be therapeutic -- they are inherently punitive, and as such are not appropriate settings in which to provide treatment aimed at restoring a person to competency. Correctional facilities, particularly facilities designed for short-term detention, do not have the staffing, funding, or capabilities to provide proper care and treatment for individuals with significant mental health needs," the group says in the complaint. "Because county jails are often unable to provide even basic mental health treatment, incompetent detainees frequently end up between a rock and a hard place: either they are housed in the general jail population -- often with convicted offenders -- or they are placed in solitary confinement, which causes their mental health to further deteriorate. This deterioration conflicts with the state's interest in prompt evaluation and treatment so that such persons may be brought to trial. "In contrast, state mental health facilities are specifically designed to provide inpatient treatment to restore incompetent detainees to competence, thereby enabling them to stand trial," the group says. They cite a 2014 Joint Report by the National Sheriff's Association and the Treatment Advocacy Center which states, "Texas is among the states with the lowest number of public psychiatric beds and among the stingiest states in per capita mental health spending." In February 2016, incompetent detainees were waiting an average of 41 days in local jails before transfer to a state mental health facility. As of April 1, the longest wait time for a non-maximum security bed was 275 days, the complaint notes. The class says their due process rights under the 14th Amendment are violated when they are confined in county jails for protracted periods. "No legitimate state interest justifies the confinement of mentally incompetent criminal defendants in county jails for months on end. The nature and duration of their incarceration bear no reasonable relation to the restorative purpose for which the court has committed those individuals to treatment," the group says in the complaint. They seek class certification and injunctive relief against the department, which did not reply to an email request for comment. The class is represented by Beth Mitchell with Disability Rights Texas. In July, Washington state federal judge Marsha Pechman ruled in favor of mentally ill inmates in their 2014 class action claiming that the state violated their civil rights by delaying their competency evaluations. "The people of Washington deserve to have their mental health needs and the needs of their spouses, parents, children, and friends attended to with the same urgency and dignity our society expects hospitals to respond with when presented with a broken bone or a cancerous tumor," Pechman said in the contempt order. TIVO: Shareholders Sue Over Sale to Rovi ---------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling TiVo too cheaply through an unfair process to Rovi Corp. in a cash and stock deal valuing TiVo at $10.70 a share, shareholders say in a federal class action in San Jose, Calif. TOWN SPORTS: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Labbe" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company awaits approval of the settlement in the class action by James Labbe. On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported class action in New York State court on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations. The Company completed settlement negotiations, pursuant to which TSI, LLC will pay its trainers the aggregate sum of $165,000 in exchange for full releases. The settlement agreement has been executed by the parties, which will become effective upon approval of the court and the class. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Bid for Access to Deposition Tapes Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that after a media scramble to get a hold of Donald Trump's deposition videos taken for the class action lawsuit against the now-defunct Trump University, a federal judge in San Diego on August 2, declined to release hours of tapes to the handful of national media outlets that requested public access to them. Multiple media outlets, led by The Washington Post, requested to intervene in the case Cohen v. Trump to get access to deposition videos taken of the GOP nominee on two separate occasions in late 2015 and early this year. The videos were originally lodged with hundreds of other documents by Cohen's attorney Jason Forge as part of their response to Trump's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case. But because Forge did not follow court procedure for filing the electronic files and seek leave of court, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel blocked their release in June. The transcripts of Trump's depositions have been made available in their entirety, however, which Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli pointed to in arguing that the presidential nominee "has nothing to hide." Curiel also granted Trump's motion to amend the protective order, making it even stricter. Now, videotaped depositions are not allowed to be filed in the case unless under seal and any videotaped deposition related to the case is barred from media dissemination. The protective order applies to both class actions out of San Diego, Cohen v. Trump and Low v. Trump University. Curiel was tasked with deciding if particularized harm would result from the public release of the tapes, and balancing the public and private interests at stake if harm was found. He found Trump's argument that releasing the deposition tapes would cause a "media frenzy" and could potentially "taint the jury pool" had some merit, pointing out courts have found audio and video tapes "were subject to a higher degree of potential abuse" than transcripts. "Given the context of the case and the timing of media interveners' request, it is nigh-inevitable that 'cut' and 'spliced' segments of defendant's deposition videos would appear in both media reports and in political advertisements aired nationwide prior to the trial date in November, increasing the likelihood that prospective jurors would be exposed to information about the case, as well as to evidence that could be introduced at trial to impeach defendant's testimony," Curiel wrote in the order. But Curiel did find several factors weighed in favor of disclosure, including legitimate public interest in the content of the videos, the media's desire to provide the electorate with insight into Trump's demeanor and Trump's public celebrity as an "experienced public figure." Since the videos have not been filed as evidence, however, "the presumption of public access is substantially weaker," Curiel wrote. "There is every reason to believe that release of the deposition videos would contribute to an ongoing 'media frenzy' that would increase the difficulty of seating an impartial jury," Curiel reiterated. Trump is being sued by former students of the shuttered real estate school who claim he defrauded them with a "get rich quick" scheme to cash in on the foreclosure crisis. Some students paid upwards of $35,000 for advice they claim was little more than an infomercial. Curiel heard from the media outlets and Trump's lawyer at a hearing on the motion to intervene on July 13. The judge was also tasked with deciding whether to make the protective order in Cohen and Low even stricter, per a request by Trump. Petrocelli argued at the hearing that removing the protective order would threaten the "integrity and fairness of the trial" by making it more difficult to pick a fair and impartial jury. He also pointed out that in most cases deposition videos are not released prior to a trial, if at all. When Dan Laidman -- the media outlets' attorney -- addressed the court, he said the potential harms or prejudices Trump claimed would happen if the videos were released were "abstract" and could "really apply to any case." He said Trump cannot specifically show how he would be prejudiced if his videotaped deposition were released to the public, something Forge reiterated by saying that "arguing this matter elevates this motion to a level it doesn't deserve." Trump needed to prove "good cause" for keeping the deposition tapes out of the public's hands. The threshold for keeping documents under wraps is difficult to meet, however, with precedence leaning toward transparency. In an expected move, Curiel also denied Trump's motion for summary judgment in the Cohen case Tuesday, finding Art Cohen and the other plaintiffs have presented enough evidence for their claims Trump violated the Racketeering or Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to go forward. The former students claim Trump violated RICO when he claimed to have "handpicked" Trump University mentors and teachers, which was reflected in marketing materials and advertisements aimed at capturing potential students. They also claim the use of the word "university" lent the program an air of credibility which led students to believe Trump University was accredited. The trial in Low v. Trump University has been set for late November, after the presidential election. The case captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants., No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.). TWO MEN: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Davis and Leonard Wesselman, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Two Men and A Truck International, Inc. and Integrity Moving Services, Inc., Case No. 9:16-cv-81354- KAM (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a moving company located at 3400 Belle Chase Way Lansing, MI 48911. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822-1111 Facsimile: (727) 898-2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com shelley@theFLlawfirm.com U.S. SMOKELESS: Paid $240,000 to Settle Claims ---------------------------------------------- Altria 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 U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC ("USSTC") has paid $240,000 to settle plaintiff's claims against it and the case was dismissed with prejudice. First, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in certain actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included among the plaintiffs are three individuals alleging use of USSTC's smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from such proceedings since December 2001. Second, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. USSTC was named in one such action in Florida (Vassallo). In February 2016, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add fraud and conspiracy claims. In July 2016, USSTC paid $240,000 to settle plaintiff's claims against it and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Also in July 2016, USSTC and Altria Group, Inc. were named as defendants, along with other named defendants, in another such case in California (Gwynn). UBER TECH: Arbitration Clause Invalid, Judge Says ------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that consumers who want to hail rides on Uber cannot do so without first agreeing to extensive terms of service, forfeiting their rights to a jury trial, but a federal judge denounced this practice and ruled this arbitration clause invalid July 29. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff's scathing opinion means Uber must face class action over surge pricing, and it strikes a blow against an increasingly ubiquitous corporate playbook used to deny customers their day in court. "Since the late eighteenth century, the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions or laws of the several states have guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to a jury trial," the introduction to Rakoff's ruling begins. "This most precious and fundamental right can be waived only if the waiver is knowing and voluntary, with the courts 'indulg[ing] every reasonable presumption against waiver,'" Rakoff continues. "But in the world of the internet, ordinary consumers are deemed to have regularly waived this right, and, indeed, to have given up their access to the courts altogether, because they supposedly agreed to lengthy 'terms and conditions' that they had no realistic power to negotiate or contest and often were not even aware of." The lead plaintiff in the case at hand, Connecticut resident Spencer Meyer, said he did not even notice the hyperlink with the phrase "Terms of Service & Privacy Policy," written in 6-point font, when he downloaded Uber to his Samsung Galaxy S5 phone. Rakoff said the key phrase, "By creating an Uber account, you agree to," was "barely legible." On the seventh page of Uber's terms, the "Dispute Resolution" provision states: "You acknowledge and agree that you and company are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff or class User in any purported class action or representative proceeding," according to the ruling. Uber seized upon this clause to fend off Meyer's federal antitrust lawsuit against the company and its CEO Travis Kalanick. Invoking a dystopic novel, Rakoff noted that Congress could never have imagined online terms of service when passing Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. "Nevertheless, in this brave new world, consumers are routinely forced to waive their constitutional right to a jury and their very access to courts, and to submit instead to arbitration, on the theory that they have voluntarily agreed to do so in response to endless, turgid, often impenetrable sets of terms and conditions, to which, by pressing a button, they have indicated their agreement," he wrote. The New York Times exposed how credit card companies, Internet service providers, big banks and other businesses use such clauses in an investigation late last year titled "Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice." In the wake of the series, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed banning such clauses in May. A year earlier, the bureau found that fewer than 7 percent of consumers realized that the clause prevented them from filing lawsuits. In Uber's case, Rakoff noted dryly: "The reasonable user might be forgiven for assuming that 'Terms of Service' refers to a description of the types of services that Uber intends to provide, not to the user's waiver of his constitutional right to a jury trial or his right to pursue legal redress in court should Uber violate the law." Uber did not respond to an email seeking comment. The July 29 ruling ended a rough week in court for the San Francisco-based ride-sharing giant, which Rakoff roasted only days earlier for hiring CIA-linked private detectives to dig up dirt on the lawsuit's lead plaintiff. Rakoff said Uber's hiring investigators at Ergo marked "a sad day" for justice. "It is sadder yet when these investigators flagrantly lie to friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff and his counsel in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to obtain derogatory information about them," the judge continued, blasting Ergo's "blatantly fraudulent and arguably criminal conduct." In rejecting Uber's arbitration bid days later, Rakoff found: "At bottom, what is at stake is the 'integrity and credibility' of 'electronic bargaining.'" "When contractual terms as significant as the relinquishment of one's right to a jury trial or even of the right to sue in court are accessible only via a small and distant hyperlink titled 'Terms of Service & Privacy Policy,' with text about agreement thereto presented even more obscurely, there is a genuine risk that a fundamental principle of contract formation will be left in the dust: the requirement for 'a manifestation of mutual assent,'" he wrote. Meyer's attorney did not immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment. The case captioned, SPENCER MEYER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- TRAVIS KALANICK and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants., 15 Civ. 9796 (S.D.N.Y.). UNITED CEREBRAL: "Ponce" Suit Alleges Labor Laws Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGELINA PONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY/SPASTIC CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES AND VENTURA COUNTIES, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No: BC 629634 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, August 4, 2016), seeks recovery for Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. United Cerebral Palsy is an international nonprofit charitable organization consisting of a network of affiliates. It is a service provider and advocate for adults and children with disabilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. AMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 800 Irvme, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsapl.com greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Court Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Waste Management, 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 is awaiting preliminary court approval of a class action settlement in Kansas. On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh Disposal Inc. ("Deffenbaugh"). In May 2012 and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was named as a defendant in purported class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These cases pertained to fuel, environmental and base rate charges included on invoices, generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair or were contrary to the customer service contracts. "We have agreed on settlement terms for both cases," the Company said. "We submitted a request for preliminary court approval during the fourth quarter of 2015 and are awaiting action on our request. The anticipated settlements will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Sumpter Filed Appeal in 6th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------- AMANDA SUMPTER, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated female inmates of the Wayne County Jail, the Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY; SHERIFF BENNY NAPOLEAN, in his Official Capacity as Wayne County Sheriff; and OFFICER TERRY GRAHAM, in her Individual Capacity, jointly and severally, the Defendants - Appellees, Case No. 16-2102 (6th Cir., August 1, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, from a lower court decision in Case No. 5:14-cv-14769 (E.D. Mich., December 17, 2014). Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of Michigan. The Plaintiff - Appellant is represented by: Michael R. Dezsi, Esq. LAW OFFICE 615 Griswold Street, Suite 1600 Detroit, MI 48226 Business: (313) 879 1206 Personal: (313) 879 1206 The Defendants - Appelles are represented by: Davidde A. Stella, Esq. WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL 500 Griswold, 11th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 234 5030 - and - James M. Surowiec, Esq. Aaron C. Thomas, Esq. ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 500 Griswold, 30th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Personal: (313) 224 6682 WELLS LAND: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elster Williamson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Wells Land Development, Inc. and William D. Wells, Case No. 8:16-cv-02215-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants owns and operates a construction company located at 12838 62nd St #300, Largo, FL 33773. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 617-6017 Facsimile: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com WEST BANCORPORATION: June 2017 Trial Date Set in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a trial date of June 19, 2017, has been set in a class action lawsuit against the Company. On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action lawsuit filed in the Iowa District Court for Polk County. Plaintiffs, Darla and Jason T. Legg, asserted nonsufficient funds fees charged by West Bank on debit card transactions were usurious under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code and that the sequence West Bank formerly used to post debit card transactions for payment violated various alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care. Plaintiffs sought alternative remedies including injunctive relief, damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of bank fees, and attorney fees. The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4, 2014. It dismissed one of Plaintiffs' claims and found that factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor on the remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two classes for further proceedings. West Bank appealed the adverse rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court. On January 22, 2016, the Iowa Supreme Court filed two opinions that affirmed and reversed parts of the trial court rulings. The court reversed the trial court by holding the Iowa Consumer Credit Code usury claim and an unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed. Certification of classes on those claims was also reversed. The court affirmed the trial court by holding that the Plaintiffs can proceed with a breach of express contract claim based on a 2006 change in debit card payment sequencing coupled with the alleged lack of notice concerning that change. West Bank believes it has additional defenses to this claim and intends to continue vigorously defending the action. The case has been remanded to the district court. Discovery is continuing, and a trial date of June 19, 2017, has been set. The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot now be reasonably estimated due to significant additional unresolved factual and legal issues that must be determined through further proceedings. WORLD WRESTLING: Provides Update on Brain Injuries-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, provided updates on lawsuits related to brain injuries. On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers. On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015. On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes. On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum- selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015. On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and, on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions. On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths. WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum- selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which motions were granted by the respective courts. On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21, 2015, respectively. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred. On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to dismiss. On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such discovery was completed by June 1, 2016 and dispositive motions in that case were to be filed by August 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits. The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by omission. On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit, and on July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's motion in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M. Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and various state Worker's Compensation laws. This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of their intellectual property. The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously. ********* 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 * * *