/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160927.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 193 Headlines 7 CALL CENTER: Class of Sales Reps Certified in "Caamano" Suit 3M CO: First Class-Action Suits Filed Over Water Contamination ADVOCATES FOR: Appeals Court Rejects Class-Action Lawsuit ALLERGAN PLC: Namenda Drug Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Lost Bid to Strike "Mauer" Suit Claims ARIZONA: Legal Immigrants File Class Suit Over Licenses ARKANSAS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Elmore" ATLAS VAN: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in "Mervyn" Tossed BANK OF AMERICA: Reply in "Jamison" Suit Moved to October 21 BASHAM LUMBER: Milkes Insurance Seeks Certification of Class BRIAD RESTAURANT: Earl, et al. Seek Back Pay Under Wage Amendment BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Oct. 6 Deadline to File Class Cert. Motion CABELA'S WHOLESALE: Has $3.8MM Settlement in Call Recording Class CALIFORNIA: "Hall" Case Cannot Proceed as Class CANBERRA: ACT Builders Face Class Action Over GST Refund CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in S.D. of California CAR2GO NA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Aderhold" Case CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls CARMAX AUTO: "Rowland" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages CASHCALL INC: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Inetianbor" CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Suit Over Prepaid Cards Dismissed CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Sperber" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Nichols" Suit Moved to W.D. of Oklahoma CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces "Slota" Suit in District of New Jersey COLORADO: Health Dept. Exec. Director Faces "Cunningham" Suit COMPANIONS OF ASHLAND: Court Snobs Bid to Decertify "George" Suit COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA: Subsidiary Faces NY Securities Action CONCENTRIX CORPORATION: Faces "Armstrong" Suit in N.D. Cal. CONFERENCE USA: "Johnson" Suit Has to Prove Court's Jurisdiction CONFERENCE USA: "Harrison" Suit Has to Prove Court's Jurisdiction CORYELL COUNTY: Class Certification Bid in "Murillo" Granted CTI BIOPHARMA: DAFNA LifeScience Wins Lead Plaintiff Role DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Goodson" Granted DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. of New York EARTHLINK INC: Reply in "Kleiner" Suit Moved EMPIRE TODAY: Wielgus, et al. Seek Certification of Class EPIC SYSTEMS: Urges High Court to Rule on Class-Action Waivers EXPRESS COURIER: Conditional Certification Granted in "Harris" FIDO: Quebec Court Allows Roaming Fees Class Action to Proceed FIRST CREDIT: Faces "Weissman" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York FORD MOTOR: Class Plaintiffs Sue Over Exploding Sunroofs GARDNER TRUCKING: Truck Drivers' Wage Class Action Pending GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Cheerios Claims GURPREET AHLUWALIA: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Breach of Lease HMK LTD: "Pena" Sues Over Substandard Rental Housing HONEST COMPANY: Faces "Hiddlestone" Suit in C.D. of California HSBC HOLDINGS: Class Action Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme Dismissed IHEARTMEDIA INC: Ponderosa Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $55MM Settlement Granted Final OK ISORAY INC: 10-Day Jury Trial Scheduled for June 18, 2018 ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Long" Suit Seeks 60 Days Pay, Benefits Recovery J.J.F. CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Goodson" Suit in M.D. of Florida JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Loeza" Case JUNO THERAPEUTICS: "Paradisco" Sues Over Share Price Drop KAS DIRECT LLC: "Mayhew" Files Suit Over False Product Ad KENYA COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Over M-Pesa-Based Loans KERYX PHARMA: Oct. 3 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Securities Fraud Class Action Filed L'OREAL: Faces Class-Action Suit Over Softsheen Carson Relaxer LAS MERCEDES: "Sosa" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. LOCK BUSTERS: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA LOYALTYONE: Faces Class Action Over Air Miles Rewards Program LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Clara" Suit Moved from Cal. to N.D. Ill. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Sesti" Suit Moved from Cal. to W.D. Tenn. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Norris" Suit Transferred to S.D. Miss. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Page" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to S.D. Iowa LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Myers" Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisc. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Perel" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to E.D. Va. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Wieland" Suit Transferred to D. Neb. MADISON COUNTY, IL: Bid Rigging Class Action Can Proceed MADISON COUNTY, IL: Appeals Court Modifies Class in "Bueker" Suit MANSUETO VENTURES: Class Certification Bid in "Bush" Suit Denied MANUEL VALDIVA: "Oliveros" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay MASTERCARD: Faces One of the UK's First Class-Action Lawsuits MEDIVATION INC: "Klein" Action Seeks to Block Pfizer Acquisition MEDPRO GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Carrel" Suit Granted MEGGITT INC: "Tully" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under Labor Code MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Fekete" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York MISONIX INC: Shareholders File Class Action Lawsuit MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow LLP Files Class Action MORTGAGE GUARANTY: 11th Cir. OKs Dismissal of "Arencibia" Suit NATURE COAST: Torres Seeks Certification of FLSA Class NAVY FEDERAL: Court Rules Class Certification in "Munday" Suit NEWELL BRANDS: Hirsch Withdraws Motion to Approve Settlement NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Action Lawsuit Remains Stayed NIMBLE STORAGE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Underway NORDIC NATURALS: Dismissal of Fish Oil Class Action Affirmed NRA GROUP: Faces "Isaac" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York NRG RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Dobkin" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida OCEAN POWER: Nov. 14 Final Hearing on $3-Mil. Settlement OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Judge Certifies Shareholders' Class Action OFFICE DEPOT: Judge Certifies Assistant Store Managers' OT Case OLA: Class Action Lawsuit Filed vs. Two Cab Aggregators in India OOMA INC: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending PHH CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Reinsurance Class Action PHILIP MORRIS: Arkansas Smokers to Get $45 Million from Deal PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Porter" Granted PJ IOWA: Court Rules Class Certification in "Tegtmeier" Suit PNI DIGITAL: "T.A.N." Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Ga. POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Class Action Filed for Misleading Shareholders POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN: Evanston Seeks Certification of Class POSHMARK INC: Faces "Reichman" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal. PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Tamayo" Suit in Middle District of Florida PULTE HOME: Court Narrows Claims in "Gazzara" Suit QUEENSLAND: 300 Aboriginal People Join Wage Suit QUORUM HEALTH: Investors File Class Action Lawsuit R&A OYSTERS: Settlement in "Cordova" Case Preliminarily Approved RELIABLE STAFFING: "Hawkins" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code REWALK ROBOTICS: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Common Stock Purchases ROCKY MOUNTAIN: "McClure" Seeks Overtime Pay RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Garver" Suit Granted SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Faces Gorss Motels Suit in Middle Dist. of Fla. SANTA FE, N.M.: Class Suit Filed Against Sheriff and Warden SAPUTO DAIRY: "Brewer" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal. SECURITY WATER: Class Suit Over Contaminated Wells Filed SMX LLC: "Rwomwijhu" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code SOLIDIFI US: "Kimble" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay SOUTHWEST COLLEGE: "Guinn" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code SQUARE INC: Court Dismissed "White" Class Suit STATE FARM: Judge OKs Class Action Status on Racketeering Law STEPHENS AND MICHAELS: Faces "Oved" Suit in E.D. of New York STERLING JEWELERS: Oct. 2017 Trial Set in Sex Discrimination Case SUBWAY 39077: Aguiar Seeks Certification of Store Managers Class SUPERVALU INC: Court Grants Class Certification in Antitrust MDL SYNTHES USA: Settlement in "Lindell" Suit Has Initial OK TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Sergeants' Suit Over Drug Prices TEXAS EDUCATION: Marlin ISD Joins Class Suit on STAAR Test TISCH ASIA: NYU Students File Class Action Lawsuit TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Bid in "Frausto" Suit Denied TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Won't Allow Delay of Trial TVI INC: "Godhigh" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class TYSON FOODS: Faces Chicken Price-Fixing Class Action in Illinois UNIFUND CCR: Faces "Stiel" Suit in Eastern District of New York UNILEVER UNITED: Class Certification Bid in "Fleming" Withdrawn UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert. Bid in "Alexander" Suit Granted UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Certification in "Wit" Suit Granted UNITED STATIONERS: Ill. Court Redefines Class in Alpha Tech Suit UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Plan Members Win Class-Action Status UTOPIA HOME: Home Health Care Companions Lose Class Action Bid VANCOUVER: Class Suit Filed Over Tax on Foreign Property Purchases WELLS FARGO: Faces Class-Action Suit After Accounts Scandal WELLS FARGO: "Carroll" Suit Gets Pre-Certification Discovery WELLNESS MEDICAL: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class WELSPUN INDIA: Faces Suit Over False Egyptian Cotton Labeling WESTCHESTER MANOR: Faces "Baez" Suit in New York Supreme Court WHITEWAVE FOODS: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Class Suits WISCONSIN: Jackson, et al. Seek Certification of 2 Inmate Classes * 9th Cir. Invalidates Class Suit Waivers in Mandatory Arbitration ********* 7 CALL CENTER: Class of Sales Reps Certified in "Caamano" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles granted the Plaintiff's motion for certification of a collective action and for permission to send a court-supervised notice filed in the lawsuit titled ANA CAAMANO v. 7 CALL CENTER INC., CHABAN WELLNESS LLC, ALEJANDRO J. CHABAN, and RONALD DAY, Case No. 16-20932-CIV-GAYLES (S.D. Fla.). Judge Gayles denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for corrective action and motion to invalidate arbitration agreements. Plaintiff Ana Caamano brought the Action against the Defendants for alleged failure to include non-discretionary commissions in her overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. She filed the Motion seeking to certify a class consisting of "[a]ll persons who are currently, or who were, employed by 7 Call Center, Inc., Chaban Wellness, Alejandro J. Chaban, and/or Ronald Day from March 15, 2013 to the present as a sales employees, as Sale Representatives, Customer Retention Specialists, or other similarly titled positions, either directly by Defendants or through any of their subsidiaries or affiliated companies. " A copy of the Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/q4qmeg from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs Ana Caamano, Christopher Torres, Maria M. Garcia, Victor Luis Rodriguez, Delfina Liscano and Edwin Guilcapi are represented by: Brian Howard Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 Facsimile: (305) 230-4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com Defendants 7 Call Center Inc., Chaban Wellness LLC, Alejandro J. Chaban and Ronald Day are represented by: Andrew J. Vargas, Esq. Jessica U. Fernandez, Esq. TRUJILLO VARGAS GONZALEZ & HEVIA, LLP 815 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 631-2528 Facsimile: (305) 631-2741 E-mail: andrew@trujillovargas.com - and - Diane Patricia Perez, Esq. DIANE PEREZ, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 985-5676 Facsimile: (305) 985-5677 E-mail: diane@dianeperezlaw.com 3M CO: First Class-Action Suits Filed Over Water Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- Nat Stein, writing for CS Indy, reports that legal recourse has begun to shape up for residents concerned with their contaminated drinking water in the Fountain, Security, Widefield areas, though justice is still distant. On the night of Sept. 18, the Denver-based Hannon Law Firm filed two class-action suits in federal court on behalf of residents affected by dangerous levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in the groundwater. One of the complaints seeks medical monitoring; the other, compensation for property damage. Crucially, the civil action pins wrongdoing not on Peterson Air Force Base (the likely source of contamination), but on the chemical manufacturers that supplied the contaminant itself. The contaminant in question is Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) -- a suppressant used to extinguish petroleum-based fires that contains the synthetic chemicals now linked to low birth weights, cancer and heart disease. As was long anticipated, in August, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released preliminary findings confirmed that training areas at Peterson where AFFF has been sprayed for decades are "possible sources" of drinking water contamination that warrant further inspection. But the Air Force apparently has no obligation to abstain from the perfectly legal, commercially available product. As such, spokeswoman Shellie-Anne Espinosa told the Indy that Peterson currently has 2,404 gallons of AFFF in stock, still authorized for emergency use -- half of that having been purchased between 2013- 2014 (well after the Environmental Protection Agency began heeding flags first raised by scientists about the hazards of PFCs.) The base does have plans to replace the AFFF with something more environmentally benign, she said. So these new class-action suits leave Peterson alone. Rather, they name the base's AFFF suppliers as defendants. 3M, Ansul and National Foam, the complaints allege, "knew or should have known that the inclusion of PFCs in AFFF presented an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment." Though the proceedings are sure to turn up more evidence in more detail, the suit does offer some evidence for this claim out-of- the-gate. In the mid-80s, for example, 3M (the original and primary AFFF manufacturer) found through personnel review that the fluorochemicals bioaccumulate. Then in 2000, when the company announced the phase out of two types of PFCs -- PFOS and PFOA -- private and public information contradicted themselves. As the lawsuit maintains, an internal memo from the EPA stated that "3M data supplied to EPA indicated that these chemicals are very persistent in the environment, have a strong tendency to accumulate in human and animal tissues and could potentially pose a risk to human health and the environment over the long term... [PFOS] appears to combine Persistence, Bioaccumulation, and Toxicity properties to an extraordinary degree" while 3M's press release insisted that "our products are safe" while back-patting their "principles of responsible environmental management" as motivating the phaseout. The defendants have yet to issue a response -- either to the court or to the Indy's request for comment. U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer has been assigned the case. ADVOCATES FOR: Appeals Court Rejects Class-Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Gene Johnson, writing for the Associated Press, reports that a federal appeals court panel on Sept. 20 rejected a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of children who go without lawyers in deportation proceedings, despite saying that having kids represent themselves in such complex matters is "an extremely difficult situation." The lawsuit was filed two years ago in Seattle by immigrant rights advocates, following a flood of unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S. border. It sought to force the government to appoint lawyers for the children; immigration judges don't have that authority now. U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly ruled that the children could pursue their claims that being denied lawyers violated their due- process rights, but three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The appeals court panel said federal immigration law precludes such claims from being filed in U.S. District Court. Instead, the judges said, such claims must be brought individually and filed directly in federal appeals courts after deportations proceedings are exhausted. "I cannot let the occasion pass without highlighting the plight of unrepresented children who find themselves in immigration proceedings," Judge Mary Margaret McKeown wrote in a concurrence to her own unanimous opinion for the panel. "I write to underscore that the Executive and Congress have the power to address this crisis without judicial intervention. What is missing here? Money and resolve -- political solutions that fall outside the purview of the courts." Advocates for the children, including the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and the American Civil Liberties Union chapters of Washington state and Southern California, said they would seek a new hearing with more judges. They say it's unreasonable to expect children who are ordered deported to then file an appeal, file briefs with arguments, obtain a final order on appeal, and then bring their case to a federal appeals court -- the point at which they would be allowed to raise the issue that being deprived of a lawyer violated their rights. ALLERGAN PLC: Namenda Drug Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit brought by a health plan and a drug wholesaler accusing Allergan PLC of suppressing competition for its Alzheimer's drug Namenda can move forward, a federal judge ruled on Sept. 13. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan denied Allergan's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which makes similar allegations to a 2014 lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. That lawsuit stopped the company from forcing patients to switch to a new version of the drug before generic versions of the old version hit the market. AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Lost Bid to Strike "Mauer" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sara L. Ellis denies the AIU Defendants' motion to strike class allegations in the Plaintiff's amended class action complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned AMY MAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL UNIVERSITY, INC., AIU ONLINE, LLC, EVEREST UNIVERSITY, EVEREST UNIVERSITY ONLINE, ZENITH EDUCATION GROUP, INC., ECMC GROUP, INC., AND JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 16 C 1473 (N.D. Ill.). Amy Mauer brings the complaint against the Defendants asserting they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by calling her cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system without her express consent. She seeks to pursue the action not only individually but also on behalf of this class: All persons nationwide who, since October 16, 2013, received one or more telemarketing calls on their cellular telephones from Defendants and/or any other person or entity acting on behalf of Defendants, and placed using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice, where the called party did not previously provide express written consent to be contacted. A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/p3XF7l from Leagle.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Brooks, Esq. SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL LLP Brian D. Brooks 3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111 Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 Facsimile: (318) 487-1741 E-mail: bbrooks@ssrllp.com - and - Brian Philip Murray, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Norman Rifkind, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN RIFKIND Defendants American Intercontinental University, Inc., and AIU Online, LLC, are represented by: Terance A. Gonsalves, Esq. Carrie Melissa Stickel, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661-3693 Telephone: (312) 902-5615 Facsimile: (312) 902-1061 E-mail: terance.gonsalves@kattenlaw.com carrie.stickel@kattenlaw.com Defendants Everest University, Everest University Online, Zenith Education Group, Inc., and ECMC Group, Inc., are represented by: David J. Kaminski, Esq. CARLSON AND MESSER LLP 5959 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1214 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 242-2200 Facsimile: (310) 242-2222 E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com - and - Gordon Kenneth Walton, Esq. WALTON LAW GROUP LLC 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 523-2106 Facsimile: (312) 523-2001 E-mail: gkwalton@waltonlawgroupllc.com ARIZONA: Legal Immigrants File Class Suit Over Licenses ------------------------------------------------------- Lourdes Medrano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Arizona, forced to grant driver's licenses to young immigrants known as "dreamers" after losing a legal battle, faces another class action, for turning away other applicants who also are protected from deportation. Still being denied driver's licenses are victims of domestic violence and human trafficking who are exempt from deportation through deferred action, a special status the federal government grants undocumented immigrants for humanitarian reasons. Recipients are eligible to work and obtain driving privileges that Arizona is illegally withholding, five named plaintiffs claim in a federal class-action filed on September 12, in Phoenix Federal Court. "There are thousands of people in Arizona who are being denied driver's licenses unjustly," said one of their attorneys, Victor Viramontes, with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles. "They are people who have been granted legal authority to live and work in the United States, and in Arizona and they're being unfairly discriminated against." Gov. Doug Ducey's office is reviewing the lawsuit, spokeswoman Torunn Sinclair said. Yuvianel Osoria et al. claim state policy of denying driver's licenses and state identification cards is unconstitutional. Attached as an exhibit is a 2012 executive order doing so, signed by then-Gov. Jan Brewer. Arizona is the only state that denies driver's licenses to these qualifying immigrants, Viramontes said. One plaintiff is a seriously ill woman who cannot drive herself to medical appointments; one has a daughter with spina bifida whom she cannot drive to appointments; all mention missed job opportunities and other hardships. "They should be giving licenses to everyone who is lawfully present in the United States," Viramontes said of Arizona. "That's what the law says and that's what they should do." Last year, immigrant advocates warned Ducey they would sue if Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division continued to turn away deferred- action recipients under the ban implemented by Brewer. Brewer issued her executive order after President Obama announced in 2012 that undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as minors would receive temporary relief from deportation through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. At the time, Brewer said driver's licenses might be used to obtain public benefits illegally. She also said the decision to grant driver's licenses should fall to states, not the federal government. Dreamers filed a lawsuit pointing out that the policy was illegal because the state already granted driver's licenses to immigrants with federal work permits. In response, Brewer expanded the ban to include the latter group. In December 2014, a federal judge sided with Arizona's more than 20,000 DACA recipients and barred the state from denying driver's licenses. Arizona spent more than $1.5 million in taxpayer money defending Brewer's executive order. The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the state policy violates Article VI of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause; the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; 42 USC, and an injunction against the policy. Co-counsel includes the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles and Daniel Ortega Jr. in Phoenix. ARKANSAS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Elmore" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JEFFERY C. ELMORE, the Plaintiff v. JUSTIN PETER, et al., the Defendants, Case No 1:16-cv-00119-KGB-BD. (E.D. Ark.), the Court entered an order denying Mr. Elmore's motion to certify his case as a class action. Jeffery Elmore, an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) inmate, filed the lawsuit without the help of lawyer. Mr. Elmore attempts to bring the lawsuit on behalf of himself as well as sixteen other inmates. Mr. Elmore cannot pursue legal claims on behalf of other inmates. Thus, the Court has severed the lawsuit into seventeen separate lawsuits. Mr. Elmore now has an opportunity to file an amended complaint to pursue his individual constitutional claims. In his amended complaint, Mr. Elmore may bring only claims that are legally related. He cannot use the lawsuit to pursue multiple, unrelated claims. His amended complaint is due within 30 days of the Order. In his amended complaint, Mr. Elmore must explain how each Defendant violated his constitutional rights and caused him injury. He is cautioned that his failure to comply with this Order could result in the dismissal of his claims, without prejudice. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pg0LMRxR ATLAS VAN: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in "Mervyn" Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ronald A. Guzman entered an order in the lawsuit styled Thomas Mervyn, Plaintiff, v. Atlas Van Lines Inc., et al. the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-03587 (N.D. Ill.), striking Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 21, 2016, the class certification motion is stricken without prejudice to renewal after ruling on summary judgment motion, which is currently being briefed. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YgN7NWOE BANK OF AMERICA: Reply in "Jamison" Suit Moved to October 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CYNTHIA A. JAMISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00422-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller approved the parties' stipulation to extend the time of filing and serving the Defendant's responsive pleading in no later than October 21, 2016. The Court likewise set that: (1) the Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed and served no later than November 18, 2016, and; (2) the Defendant's reply shall be filed and served no later than November 25, 2016. The Court added that all other deadlines set in the court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall remain in effect. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 9, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/YhCfAC from Leagle.com. Cynthia A. Jamison, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Insley- Pruitt -- MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, pro hac vice. Cynthia A. Jamison, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan Chowning Poppler, Berman DeValerio, Patricia I. Avery, Wolf Popper LLP, pro hac vice & Kristin J. Moody -- kmoody@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP & Kobi Kennedy Brinson -- kbrinson@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice. BASHAM LUMBER: Milkes Insurance Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned M. MILKES INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein, the Plaintiffs, v. BASHAM LUMBER CO., INC.; 9094250 B.C. LTD., d/b/a/ EZ LOG STRUCTURES; CHANNELCAST MEDIA CORPORATION, d/b/a PIPELINE MEDIA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06855 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "(a) all persons, (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendants Basham Lumber Co., Inc., 9094250 B.C. Ltd., doing business as EZ Log Structures, and Channelcast Media Corporation, d/b/a Pipeline Media, promoting goods or services it sold (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C." The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ohfPkKBd The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 The Defendant is represented by: Christopher T. Sheean, Esq. Joelle M. Shabat, Esq. SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP 330 N. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60611 BRIAD RESTAURANT: Earl, et al. Seek Back Pay Under Wage Amendment ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOBY EARL, an individual; SHYHEEM SMITH, an individual; DEATRA ENARI, an individual; MICHELLE PICKTHALL, an individual; and JAMES SKADOWSKI, an individual, the Plaintiffs, v. BRIAD RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02217 (D. Nev., Sept. 20, 2016), seeks to recover hourly minimum wage pursuant to Nevada's Minimum Wage Amendment. The Plaintiffs allege that they were paid less than $8.25 per hour by Defendant during their employment with it, but that Defendant did not qualify to pay below the upper-tier, $8.25 minimum hourly wage level and, therefore, are liable to Plaintiffs for back pay, damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs as described in the Minimum Wage Amendment. Briad Restaurant operates casual dining and restaurant franchises. The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Livingston, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don Springmeyer, Esq. Bradley Schrager, Esq. Daniel Hill, Esq. WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP 3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NE 89120-2234 Telephone: (702) 341 5200 Facsimile: (702) 341 5300 E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com bschrager@wrslawyers.com dhill@wrslawyers.com BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Oct. 6 Deadline to File Class Cert. Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAMERRA F. WASHINGTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL, P.C., LLO., KIRK E. BRUMBAUGH, and MARK QUANDAHL, Defendants, No. 8:15CV444 (D. Nebr.), Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied plaintiff's motion to extend deadline on motion for class certification as moot, but granted plaintiff's unopposed amended motion to extend deadline on motion for class certification. The Court said the original motion should be denied as moot, and the amended motion granted. Plaintiff shall have until October 6, 2016, to file a motion for class certification, brief and index in support thereof. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://is.gd/nuMrCh from Leagle.com. Judge Strom earlier granted the Plaintiff's request to amend complaint until September 22, 2016. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 9, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/1w3IJC from Leagle.com. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' actions and "routine practice" of serving interrogatories and requests for admission with instructions to pro se litigants that answers be "sworn" and "filed" violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), and a previous court order in the case of Birge v. Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C., et al., where the Defendants in that suit are no longer advised to send Requests for Admission. Plaintiff had defaulted on her car payments. The Plaintiff alleges that defendants' discovery request on Plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the Settlement Order in the Birge case. In the case, the Court barred the Plaintiff from referencing Birge in her complaint, any exhibits attached, and/or in and throughout discovery. The Court required the plaintiff to strike any and all references to Birge case, but will allow Plaintiff to make the other changes provided in the amended complaint. Furthermore, the Defendants' motion to quash notice to take deposition is denied as moot. Tamerra F. Washington, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg, HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM. Tamerra F. Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C., LLO., Defendant, represented by David A. Houghton, HOUGHTON, BRADFORD LAW FIRM & Karl E. Von Oldenburg - - karlvonoldenburg@bqlaw.com -- BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM. Kirk E. Brumbaugh, et al., Defendants, represented by Karl E. Von Oldenburg -- karlvonoldenburg@bqlaw.com -- BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM. CABELA'S WHOLESALE: Has $3.8MM Settlement in Call Recording Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Keller Grover regarding the Cabela's Call Recording Settlement. A proposed $3,850,000 class action settlement has been reached in the lawsuit Saunders, et al. v. Cabela's Wholesale, Inc., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-14-537095. The lawsuit claims that Cabela's Wholesale, Inc. recorded telephone calls of persons calling its toll free customer-service lines without telling callers that the calls may be recorded, allegedly in violation of California law. Defendant has denied the claims. Nonetheless, Defendant and the Class Representatives have agreed to settle the dispute to avoid the uncertainty and costs of further litigation and trial. Who is a class member? You are a class member if you are a natural person who: (1) during the period December 12, 2012 through February 18, 2014, inclusive, placed a call while physically located in California to one of Cabela's toll free telephone numbers and spoke with a representative of Cabela's; and (2) was either a California resident at the time such call was made or used a phone number with a California area code to place such call regardless of your residency. This settlement covers those calls. What are my legal rights? This notice is only a summary. You may obtain more complete information by visiting www.CabelasRecordingSettlement.com and viewing the full class notice, by writing to the address at the bottom of this notice, or by calling the Claims Administrator at 1-844-528-0183. To receive a settlement payment, eligible class members must submit a timely claim. It is expected that eligible class members who submit a timely and valid Claim Form will receive approximately $100 per qualified call but not more than $5,000 per call. The amount of each individual settlement payment will depend on the total number of claims filed. Unless you take steps to exclude yourself from the settlement, you will be bound by all of the Court's orders if the Court approves the settlement, whether or not you submit a claim. This means you will not be able to make any claim that is covered by the settlement against Cabela's or other Released Parties in the future. If you wish to submit a claim, visit www.CabelasRecordingSettlement.com or contact the Claims Administrator at 1-844-528-0183 to get a claim form. The deadline to submit claims is December 19, 2016. If you do not wish to be a member of the settlement class, you must submit a letter to the Claims Administrator at the address below postmarked by December 19, 2016. If you opt-out you cannot submit a claim form. Visit the settlement website for more information. If you wish to object to the settlement, you must do so by submitting your objection to the Claims Administrator at the address below postmarked by December 19, 2016. Visit the settlement website for more information. A final hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 305, San Francisco Superior Court, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Court will decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also determine attorneys' fees and costs and plaintiffs' service awards. The motion for attorneys' fees and costs and plaintiffs' service awards will be posted on the settlement website after it is filed. You may attend the hearing, but you do not have to. This is only a summary regarding the settlement. For detailed information including, the full text of the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Class Notice and the Claim Form, visit www.CabelasRecordingSettlement.com, call 1-844-528-0183, or write to: Saunders v. Cabela's Settlement, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 59239, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9239. CALIFORNIA: "Hall" Case Cannot Proceed as Class ----------------------------------------------- In the case, ALFONSO HALL, Plaintiff, v. D. SMITH, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe dismissed the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the June 1, 2016 Order denying his appointment of counsel and motion for class certification. The Court denied the appointment of class counsel on the ground that the action does not involve allegations or claims that would ordinarily be eligible for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Plaintiff, a non-attorney, may bring his own claims, but he may not represent others. Moreover, the Court held that the Plaintiff has not met the high burden of coming forward with evidence of law or facts of such a strongly convincing nature as to induce the Court to reverse the order denying his request for class certification and the appointment of class counsel. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/S8pEhU from Leagle.com. CANBERRA: ACT Builders Face Class Action Over GST Refund -------------------------------------------------------- Katie Burgess, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that a loophole in taxation law could mean thousands of Canberrans may have been incorrectly charged GST when they bought a unit off the plan. A class action is being mounted against several property developers for the refund of GST included on the purchase price of new residential units in the ACT. IMF Bentham confirmed that, along with law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth, it was investigating cases where developers charged buyers GST-inclusive prices, despite advice from the Australian Tax Office that no GST was chargeable because of a quirk in the legislation. The advice related to an obscure ruling from 2010 when the Federal Court found that units constructed on land subject to a long-term lease were not considered "new residences" under the law and therefore should be input taxed. At the time, residential premises were only considered to be "new" if they had not been sold before as a residential premises or had not been the subject of a long-term lease. All land in the ACT is leasehold -- not freehold -- though, tenured for a period of 99 years from the Crown. That meant developers of Canberra unit blocks would buy the lease to the land then split the lease into the unit title for each new owner. However because the lease had previously been held by the developer, the premises the owners purchased weren't considered "new" and should not have been subject to GST, according to the Federal Court. The loophole was closed in 2012 but still applied to developments that were commercially committed before January 27, 2011. IMF Bentham said developers still included a supply tax in the price of the units they sold across the ACT and might have then kept a 10 per cent windfall. Investment manager Oliver Gayner estimated thousands of Canberrans could be affected, with the bill to run into the millions. "Our investigations are ongoing but to date we have identified around 15 different developments which we believe qualify for the class action. Ultimately that figure could rise to as much as 30," Mr Gayner said. "At an average development size of 200 units, up to 6000 units could be in scope. Assuming an average purchase price per unit of $400,000, a typical claim size would be $40,000 GST plus interest." Anyone who bought a residential in the ACT off the plan that settled in the past six years is urged to check their contract. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in S.D. of California ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management Services, L.P. The case is captioned Khoi Nguyen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02366-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Dana M. Sabraw. Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized collections agency, providing highest level of delinquent receivables resolution. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696 9006 Facsimile: (619) 564 6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com CAR2GO NA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Aderhold" Case -------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is ERIC ADERHOLD, on his own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAR2GO N.A. LLC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-35208 (9th Cir.). The Federal Communications Commission has determined that persons who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called at the number which they have given, absent instructions to the contrary. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the text message in question was not a telemarketing message. Car2go's message contains no content encouraging purchase of car2go services. The message was directed instead in completing the registration process initiated by the Plaintiff and in validating his personal information. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 9, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/WxrZLH from Leagle.com. CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls -------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line and a tax-exempt non-profit group, among others, for their alleged robocalls -- which offered a free cruise for taking part in a political opinion survey -- reportedly could get a record $76 million. Nicole Su, an associate in Dorsey Whitney LLP's Southern California office, reported that the parties have reached a settlement. Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and defendants could not immediately be reached for comment on the proposed deal, which Su reported is estimated to cost the defendants between $56 million and $76 million. If the plaintiffs are paid out the full $76 million, the deal would be the highest Telephone Consumer Protection Act settlement in history, she noted. Judge Matthew Kennelly, for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a notification indicating that a deal has, indeed, been struck. The news came just days before a Sept. 12 jury trial was set to start. In his notification, Kennelly agreed to vacate the trial on the condition that a signed and executed settlement agreement and motion for preliminary approval is submitted no later than Sept. 26. The motion for preliminary approval is then to be noticed for hearing on Sept. 28, the judge wrote. In May 2012, the plaintiffs, Grant Birchmeir and Stephen Parkes, filed their proposed class action lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line Inc. Later, Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours Inc., the Berkley Group Inc. and Economic Strategy Group would be added as defendants. The plaintiffs allege the defendants illegally contacted class members, which include about 1 million individuals who received calls on their cell phones or landlines from CCL and its subsidiary marketing companies between August 2011 and August 2012. They contend the offer of a "free" cruise package from CCL in exchange for taking a political survey was a "scam." "Not only is the 'free' cruise not free, the survey is simply a marketing tool with no legitimate political basis," the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint. Under the TCPA, telephone solicitations, i.e. telemarketing, and the use of automated telephone equipment are strictly prohibited. In particular, the law limits the use of automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages and fax machines. It also specifies several technical requirements for fax machines, autodialers and voice messaging systems -- principally with provisions requiring identification and contact information of the entity using the device to be contained in the message. Generally, the act makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party" except in emergencies or in circumstances exempted by the Federal Communications Commission. The law permits any "person or entity" to bring an action to enjoin violations of the statute and/or recover actual damages or statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation. In April, Kennelly ruled that the robocalls were unlawful under the TCPA because they were made without prior express consent. "The evidence is uncontroverted that a prerecorded message was played on each call; DeJongh himself testified to this effect during his deposition," the judge wrote in his 31-page order. "This is a violation of the TCPA, irrespective of whether the calls were made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit, were made for a political or non-commercial purpose, or did not make reference to or play long enough to mention defendants' vacation products." Last year, the Federal Trade Commission and 10 state attorneys general also took action against the Florida-based cruise line company and seven other companies that assisted the massive telemarketing campaign. Although the FTC's do-not-call and robocall rules do not prohibit political survey robocalls, the commission said the robocalls violated federal law because they incorporated a sales pitch for a cruise to the Bahamas. The robocalls generated millions of dollars for the cruise line, the FTC said. "Marketers who know the ropes understand you can't steer clear of the do not call rules by tacking a political or survey call onto a sales pitch," said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. She added, "Anyone who assists in making illegal calls is also on the hook." According to the joint complaint filed by the FTC and the states, the robocall campaign ran from October 2011 through July 2012 and averaged about 12 million to 15 million illegal sales calls a day. Consumers who answered these calls typically heard a pre-recorded message supposedly from "John from Political Opinions of America," who told them they had been "carefully selected" to participate in a 30-second research survey, after which they could "press one" to receive a two-day cruise to the Bahamas. An attorney for the cruise line told The Washington Post last April that a group of political action committees, or PACs, had reached out to the company, wanting to offer the cruise packages to increase participation in the surveys. "After vetting the request with its attorneys, Caribbean agreed to allow one of its cruise promotions to be offered by the PACs to recipients of a narrow scope of specific political survey calls," said Jeffrey Backman, an attorney who represented CCL. "Without Caribbean's consent, certain PACs offered the cruise promotions to recipients of calls outside the scope of calls specifically approved by Caribbean. The matter has been completely closed." CARMAX AUTO: "Rowland" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- James Rowland on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, a limited liability company, Carmax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02135 (E.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), seeks recovery of unpaid minimum wages, reimbursement of work-related expenses, missed breaks compensation, damages resulting from failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and violation of the California unfair competition law. Defendants are a national automobile dealership where Plaintiff worked as a sales consultant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. Thomas A. Rist, Esq. HUMPHREY & RIST, LLP 351 Paseo Nuevo, 2nd Floor Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-2924 Facsimile: (805) 618-2939 Email: christina@humphreyrist.com tom@humphreyrist.com - and - James A. Clark, Esq. TOWER LEGAL GROUP 1510 J St., Suite 125 Placer, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 361-6009 Facsimile: (916) 361-6019 Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com CASHCALL INC: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Inetianbor" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ABRAHAM INETIANBOR, JOHNNY FRETWELL, LAUREN BROWN, THOMAS PETERSON, VIRGINIA FRY, and NELS PATE, JR., on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CASHCALL, INC., and JOHN PAUL REDDAM, the Defendants, Case No. 0:13-cv-60066-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James I. Cohn entered an order certifying the following class and subclasses: "all individuals identified as Florida residents in Western Sky loan agreements dated on or after February 11, 2011"; Reddam FDUTPA Subclass: "all individuals identified as Florida residents in Western Sky loan agreements dated on or after June 30, 2011"; Reddam Usury Subclass: "all individuals identified as Florida residents in Western Sky loan agreements who made payments on their loans on or after June 30, 2013"; and CashCall Usury Subclass: "all individuals identified as Florida residents in Western Sky loan agreements who made payments on their loans on or after February 11, 2013". The Court appointed Plaintiffs Johnny Fretwell, Lauren Brown, Thomas Peterson, Virginia Fry, and Nels Pate, Jr. as class representatives, and Wallace & Graham, P.A. and Varnell & Warwick, P.A. as class counsel. The Class counsel shall submit a proposed schedule for providing class members with requisite within 14 days of the date of the Order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xbat5m9B CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Suit Over Prepaid Cards Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel said on September 19 that a class action filed against the company and two other Israeli cellular operators in December 2015, alleging that the defendants unlawfully offer cellular pre-paid calling cards for very high prices by allegedly coordinating such prices among them, has been dismissed. The total amount claimed from all defendants was estimated to be about NIS13 billion ($3.45 billion), out of which an estimated NIS6.7 billion was claimed from the company. The stock decreased 0.80% or $0.06 on September 19, hitting $7.45. About 15,881 shares traded hands. Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE:CEL) has risen 24.96% since February 12, 2016 and is uptrending. It has outperformed by 10.24% the S&P500. Cellcom Israel Ltd. is a provider of cellular communications services. The company has a market cap of $743.17 million. The Firm offers a range of cellular services through its second- generation , third-generation (3G) and fourth-generation (4G) cellular networks. It has a 17.66 P/E ratio. These services include basic and advanced cellular telephone services, text and multimedia messaging services, and advanced cellular content and data services. CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Sperber" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The case is captioned Meyer Sperber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services LLC, formerly known as Veldos, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05222 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2016). Central Credit is a collection agency. The Plaintiff appears pro se. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Nichols" Suit Moved to W.D. of Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Bill G. Nichols, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Chesapeake Operating LLC and Chesapeake Exploration LLC, the Defendants, Case No. CJ-16-00014, was removed from the District Court Beaver County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01073-HE to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Joe Heaton. Chesapeake Operating engages in exploration and drilling of natural gas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A Sharp, Esq. REX A SHARP PA - KANSAS 5301 W 75th St Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901 0505 Facsimile: (913) 901 0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura J Long, Esq. Patrick L Stein, Esq. Timothy J Bomhoff, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT-OKC 211 N Robinson Ave., 10th Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235 9621 Facsimile: (405) 228 7339 E-mail: laura.long@mcafeetaft.com patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces "Slota" Suit in District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial Services, Inc. The case is styled STEPHEN P. SLOTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16- cv-05751-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., Sep. 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael A. Shipp. CMRE Financial provides accounts receivables management services to healthcare organizations. It offers collection; self-pay accounts receivables management; insurance and worker's compensation follow-up and rebilling; electronic funds transfer; and managed care services. The company is based in Brea, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 COLORADO: Health Dept. Exec. Director Faces "Cunningham" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Susan E. Birch. The case is styled Robert L. Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Susan E. Birch in her official capacity only as Executive Director of the Colorado State Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02353-NYW (D. Col., Sep. 19, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Nina Y. Wang. The HCPF is the principal department of the Colorado state government responsible for administering the Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus programs as well as a variety of other programs for Colorado's low-income families, the elderly and persons with disabilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Silverstein, Esq. Sara R. Neel, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union-Denver 303 East 17th Street, Suite 350 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 777 5482 Facsimile: (303) 777 1773 E-mail: msilverstein@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org - and - Lawrence W. Treece, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP-DENVER 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 Telephone: (303) 223 1257 Facsimile: (303) 223 1111 E-mail: ltreece@bhfs.com COMPANIONS OF ASHLAND: Court Snobs Bid to Decertify "George" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James S. Gwin denies the Defendant's motion to decertify the class in the lawsuit entitled DEE DEE GEORGE v. COMPANIONS OF ASHLAND, INC., Case No. 1:16-CV-00429 (N.D. Ohio). On February 24, 2016, Dee Dee George moved to certify both a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action against her employer Defendant Companions of Ashland, Inc. The Court approved the parties' stipulation to class certification and a collective action on June 28, 2016. On August 15, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion to decertify the Rule 23 class. According to Judge Gwin's opinion & order, at bottom, the Defendant argues that the low number of opt ins to the collective action demonstrates a lack of numerosity for the Rule 23 collective action. But failing to make the effort to "opt in" to a collective action does not equate to "opting out" of the class action, Judge Gwin says. In fact, Judge Gwin opines, not a single employee has chosen to opt out of the Rule 23 class. A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/c3WC8O from Leagle.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 815 Superior Ave. E., Suite 1325 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498-9100 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Valerie A. Lang, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF VALERIE A. LANG 8310 Port Jackson Ave. NW North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 685-9405 Facsimile: (800) 880-4707 COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA: Subsidiary Faces NY Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Brasileira de Distribuicao said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's subsidiary Cnova, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of Cnova's initial public offering, or IPO, have been named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit in the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims related to macro-economic situation in Brazil and emphasized by the subject matter of the internal review (note 1.5), and Cnova may incur significant expenses (including, without limitation, substantial attorneys' fees and other professional advisor fees and obligations to indemnify certain current and former officers or directors and the underwriters of Cnova's initial public offering who are or may become parties to or involved in such matters). The Company and its subsidiary Cnova are unable at this time to predict the extent of potential liability in these matters, including what, if any, parallel action the SEC might take as a result of the facts at issue in these matters or the related internal review conducted by the Company and its subsidiary Cnova and its advisors retained by the Cnova's board of directors. CONCENTRIX CORPORATION: Faces "Armstrong" Suit in N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Concentrix Corporation. The case is entitled Ashley Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Concentrix Corporation, a New York corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16- cv-05363-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sep. 19, 2016). Concentrix is a high value business services company founded in 1991. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 638 8800 Facsimile: (415) 638 8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com CONFERENCE USA: "Johnson" Suit Has to Prove Court's Jurisdiction ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONFERENCE USA, BIG EAST CONFERENCE, and THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-02341-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind.), District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ordered the Plaintiff to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction. The Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement should specifically identify the citizenship of the defendants. It shall be due 14 days from the September 8, 2016 Entry of the Court Order. The Court held that, in a class action, the citizenship of an entity that is not a corporation is determined by the State where it has its principal place of business and the State under whose laws it is organized. In the case, the allegations of the Plaintiff fail to specify the type of business entity of Defendants Conference USA and Big East and fail to allege the State under whose laws they are organized. The allegations also fail to identify the State under whose laws Defendant NCAA is organized. The allegations are not sufficient to allow the Court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/M1K2Sg from Leagle.com. WILLIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by: William E. Winingham, Esq. WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM 2859 N Meridian St Indianapolis, IN 46208 Tel: 317-920-6400 CONFERENCE USA: "Harrison" Suit Has to Prove Court's Jurisdiction ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE, and THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-02337-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.), District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ordered the Plaintiff to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction. The Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement should specifically identify the citizenship of the defendants. It shall be due 14 days from the September 8, 2016 Entry of the Court Order. The Court held that, in a class action, the citizenship of an entity that is not a corporation is determined by the State where it has its principal place of business and the State under whose laws it is organized. In the case, the allegations of the Plaintiff fail to specify the type of business entity of Defendants Conference USA and Big East and fail to allege the State under whose laws they are organized. The allegations also fail to identify the State under whose laws Defendant NCAA is organized. The allegations are not sufficient to allow the Court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/AYcTVl from Leagle.com. JAMES HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by: William E. Winingham, Esq. WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM 2859 N Meridian St Indianapolis, IN 46208 Tel: 317-920-6400 OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE, Defendant, Pro Se. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Pro Se CORYELL COUNTY: Class Certification Bid in "Murillo" Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled NANCY MURILLO, et al. v. CORYELL COUNTY TRADESMEN, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03641-NJB-DEK (E.D. La.), the Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification of: "all individuals who provided labor to Coryell County Tradesmen or CC Labor or Ronald Franks Construction on the 225 Baronne Street construction project in New Orleans, Louisiana during the previous two years and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), or minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA, and who did not receive full overtime or minimum wage compensation." The Court, however, denied Plaintiffs' request for an opt-in period of six months, because the statute of limitations on putative plaintiffs' claims continues to run and this case has already been pending for close to a year. The Court finds that a 90-day opt-in period would be more appropriate in this matter. The Court further ordered that: 1. notice shall be sent to the Class; 2. parties meet and confer regarding the form and content of the proposed notice, in keeping with the Court's ruling. 3. the extent that any employment records of potential class members have not been produced, Defendants must produce the information to Plaintiffs; and 4. the opt-in period for putative class members shall be 90 days from the date that a final notice is approved by the Court. The parties are ordered to submit a joint proposed notice within 10 days of the date of this Order. If the parties are unable to agree on a proposed notice, the parties shall each submit (1) their proposed notice and (2) their objections, with supporting authority, to the opposing party's notice and/or consent form, within 10 days of the Order, and request an expedited status conference on the matter. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yR1wSAtA CTI BIOPHARMA: DAFNA LifeScience Wins Lead Plaintiff Role --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. C16-216RSL (W.D. Wash.), District Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted DAFNA LifeScience, LP and DAFNA LifeScience Select's motion for their appointment as Lead Plaintiff and appointed Bernstein Litowitz as lead counsel. The complaint accuses Defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act and the Securities Act for making false or misleading statements about the Defendants' business, operations, and prospects. The two competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel were filed: (1) Motion of DAFNA LifeScience, LP and DAFNA LifeScience Select, LP for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel, and (2) Renewed Motion of Medical Opportunities Fund to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and to Approve Proposed Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Lead Counsel. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), the Court shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. The Court considered among the plaintiffs who has the largest financial interest. In the case, it is appropriate to aggregate the losses of DAFNA Funds, making them the presumptively most adequate plaintiff based upon their financial interest in the litigation and representations regarding typicality and adequacy. The Court ruled that Medical Opportunities Fund has not presented proof that the interests of class members who purchased preferred stock or converted preferred stock to common stock are not aligned with those who purchased common stock on the open market. In the case, Medical Opportunities Fund cited the cases that address representation issues on class certification, not appointment as lead plaintiff. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 2, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/BuuZBLfrom Leagle.com. Marcello Zucca, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Marcello Zucca, Movant, represented by Dan Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com -- ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING. Paul Sapan, et al., Movants, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Dan Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING. ames Lessard, Movant, represented by Thomas James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston & Juli E. Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK. Rebecca Lessard, Movant, represented by Juli E. Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK. IPConcept (Luxemburg) S.A., Movant, Pro se. Medical Opportunities Fund, Movant, represented by Stuart W. Emmons -- swe@federmanlaw.com -- FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, pro hac vice, William B. Federman -- wbf@federmanlaw.com -- FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK. DAFNA Lifescience, LP, et al., Movants, represented by Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Rachel Ann Felong -- rachel.felong@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice & Roger M. Townsend -- rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC. Camia Investment LLC, et al., Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Suhua Zhang, Movant, Pro se. Sanjivkumar Dalsania, Movant, represented by Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. Darron McGlothin, Plaintiff, represented by Clifford A. Cantor. William Ahrens, et al., Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. CTI BioPharma Corp, Defendant, represented by Ross Bradley Galin -- rgalin@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Goodson" Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Seanna Goodson, the Plaintiff, v. Designed Receivable Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CV 15-003308 JVS (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. James V. Selna entered an order granting Designed Receivable's motion for summary judgment. The Court declines to adjudicate Goodson's class certification motion. A district court has the discretion to grant a motion for summary judgment before it decides whether to grant class certification where it is more practicable to do so and where the parties will not suffer significant prejudice, the Court said, citing Leon v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 215CV07419ODWJC, 2016 WL 2595999, (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2016) (quoting Wright v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541, 543 (9th Cir. 1984)). The Court, like the Leon court, fails to see cognizable prejudice to either party by not adjudicating the motion. There would be no prejudice to either [Goodson] or the putative class; indeed, the grant of summary judgment makes denial without prejudice of the class certification motion the least prejudicial outcome for the class members, for it prevents them from being bound to an adverse judgment and thus preserves their ability to bring the same claim (either individually or as a class) in future. There is no prejudice to Designed Receivable because it assumed the risk that summary judgment in [its] favor will have only stare decisis effect [and not res judicata effect]. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=58nj9hEb DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Adjustment Service, Incorporated. The case is captioned Esther Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05223 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2016). The Defendant is a national accounts receivable management and credit reporting agency. It is a fully licensed, bonded and insured collection company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com EARTHLINK INC: Reply in "Kleiner" Suit Moved -------------------------------------------- In the case, LINDA KLEINER, Plaintiff, v. EARTHLINK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-01609-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller approved the parties' stipulation for a second extension of the time for the Defendant's answer or responsive pleadings to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in no later than September 26, 2016. The requested extension will provide the parties with the opportunity to further investigate the issue and continue their efforts to reach a resolution, without the filing of potentially unnecessary papers and further intervention from the Court. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/Mz8QfD from Leagle.com. Linda Kleiner, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.. Earthlink, Inc., Defendant, represented by William Scott Cameron -- scameron@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding & John Whittaker -- jwhittaker@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding. EMPIRE TODAY: Wielgus, et al. Seek Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KEVIN WIELGUS, TOM RINGLESTEIN, MARK COSTIGAN, and SHERYL PASCOE individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EMPIRE TODAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09085 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification, and also request the Court delay ruling on the motion pending completion of discovery and a briefing schedule on the motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs allege claims for unpaid wages, commissions, bonuses, and related compensation based on contracts they had with Defendant. The Defendant has not answered or otherwise filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' class action complaint. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oT8cInGC The Plaintiff is represented by: Caesar A. Tabet, Esq. Timothy A. Hudson, Esq. E. Jordan Wilkow, Esq. TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC 209 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 762 9450 Facsimile: (312) 762 9451 E-mail: ctabet@tdrlawfirm.com thudson@tdrlawfirm.com jwilkow@tdrlawfirm.com EPIC SYSTEMS: Urges High Court to Rule on Class-Action Waivers -------------------------------------------------------------- The HR Specialist reports that it seems increasingly likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to decide one of the hottest topics in employment law: Whether class-action waivers in employment agreements are legal. Three sets of plaintiffs -- including the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) -- have asked the court to hear cases that hinge on whether employers can require employees to sign away their rights to file class-action lawsuits to settle employment-related disputes, sending them to be decided by an arbitrator instead. On Sept. 6, Epic Systems, a Wisconsin software firm, asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a case the company lost earlier this year. In May, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the company's mandatory arbitration clause violated the National Labor Relations Act. On Sept. 9, accounting firm Ernst & Young filed a similar petition with the court, seeking to appeal a 9th Circuit decision that its waiver requirement was illegal. Then, also on Sept. 9, the NLRB filed its own Supreme Court petition arguing that class-action waivers are illegal. The board first set out that position in its 2012 landmark ruling in D.R. Horton and reaffirmed it in its 2014 Murphy Oil decision. But the 2nd, 5th and 8th Circuit Courts have since ruled that class-action waivers requiring arbitration are legal, even as the 7th and 9th Circuits rejected them. That split can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear one or more of the cases -- and has enough sitting justices to avoid a 4-4 stalemate -- it could result in one of the biggest employment law decisions in years. EXPRESS COURIER: Conditional Certification Granted in "Harris" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JAMES HARRIS; RICK KETCHAM; and ADAM MANSKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05033-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of collective action; 2. granting disclosure of potential opt-in Plaintiffs' contact Information; and 3. approving the circulation of Court-approved notices. The Class based on Fair Labor Standards Act is defined as: "each individual who (a) worked for Express Courier International, Inc. ("Express"), as a driver, courier, or owner-operator any time after February 11 , 2013, (b) never subcontracted any of his or her work for Express, and (c) contracted directly with Express under Express's standard Owner-Operator Agreement." Having reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion in light of the relevant standards and applicable factors, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating they are similarly situated to a potential class of drivers/couriers working for LSO. Although drivers/couriers may differ in working part-time instead of full-time, or choosing to drive energy- efficient Priuses over gas-guzzling box trucks, they all share a number of similarities. They hold the same job title, work for LSO locations throughout the Southeast, work under the same policies and practices enforced by the company, and are or were subject to the same alleged violations of law during the same period of time. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6K7VkULX FIDO: Quebec Court Allows Roaming Fees Class Action to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Laurence Bich-Carriere, Esq. -- lbichcarriere@lavery.ca -- of Lavery de Billy LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on August 10, 2016, the Quebec Court of Appeal authorized a class action pertaining to international roaming fees, thus reiterating, with renewed respect for the opposing view, that meeting the authorization threshold and the criteria respecting the representative's interest is fairly easy under Quebec law. The proposed class action After having incurred "disagreeably surprising" roaming fees during a trip to the US, Inga Sibiga, a Quebec consumer who has a wireless telephone contract with Fido (a subsidiary of Rogers), seeks the authorization to institute a class action against Bell, Fido, Rogers and Telus, the four major wireless service providers in Canada. In essence, she claims that the international roaming fees charged by those companies to Quebec consumers are abusive, lesionary and so disproportionately high as to amount to exploitation, contrary to section 8 of the Consumer Protection Act and article 1437 of the Civil Code of Quebec. Ms. Sibiga asks for the reduction of the obligation of subscribers and punitive damages. International data roaming allows a consumer to use a mobile phone out of the area served by his or her provider, the latter resorting to another provider's network, at a set tariff. Since all defendants offer national coverage, roaming charges only become an issue in respect of data transmission abroad. The decision under appeal On July 2, 2014, the honorable Michel Yergeau of the Superior Court of Quebec dismisses the motion for authorization with costs. The Superior Court essentially finds that Ms. Sibiga does not appear to have satisfied the requirement of the then-applicable article 1003(b) CCP as the facts alleged in her motion are not sufficient to justify the conclusions sought. Justice Yergeau notes that the motion contains no allegation or document establishing the framework of the contractual obligations assumed by the petitioner and by her service provider. Specifically, he scolds the petitioner for having failed to produce a copy of her contract with Fido, a contract which he characterizes as an "essential tangible fact". In view of this rather poor evidence, it appears to the Court that the allegations as to the exploitative nature of the roaming fees are mere speculations and not facts sufficient to justify authorizing a class action. Expressing an oft-heard concern, the Superior Court insists that it is not its role "to embark on the equivalent of a public inquiry" as called for by the motion. As liberal as Infineon suggests the screening mechanism at the authorization stage should be,"[o]ne does not launch court proceedings as expensive for the judicial system as a class action on such a tenuous base." Adding to this decided conclusion, the Superior Court further expresses the view that Ms Sibiga is not in a position to adequately represent the members of the class, as required by article 1003(d) CCP. This is in part because she does not have the required standing within the meaning of article 55 CCP, at least against Telus and Bell since she is bound by contract only with Fido (and thus Rogers). This is also because, having only a minimal understanding of the class action process and no control whatsoever over the proceedings, she appears to be no more than a pawn of her attorneys. Without blaming Ms. Sibiga or her lawyers, the Superior Court insists on the independence of the "representative" in a class action. Ms. Sibiga's appeal would be allowed, the honorable Nicholas Kasirer writing for the Court of Appeal. The "social dimension" of class actions, emphasized by the most recent Supreme Court decisions, is the rock against which the Superior Court's decision is quashed. Appeal Although concurring with the concerns expressed by the Superior Court that "a lax approach to the standard can result in authorization of class actions that do not deserve to go to trial", the Court of Appeal is of the view that it erred: "while a judge can refuse a motion for authorization that relies on an overly liberal interpretation of the Infineon standard, it is a mistake in law to refuse authorization by treating that standard as overly liberal in itself." In the Court of Appeal's opinion, "by denying authorization [. . .] based on what he described as an imprecise and speculative claim, the motion judge neglected to apply the prima facie case standard relevant to this consumer class action" and thus failed to see the threshold for authorization was met. The unbearable lightness of the authorization filter "The action should be allowed to proceed if the applicant has an arguable case," "the court's role is merely to filter out frivolous motions": article 1003 CCP sets a low threshold, despite proposals for a more interrogative approach. Indeed, a scintilla of credibility suffices at this stage: it is at the trial on the merits that allegations should be substantiated, supported by the evidence. The motion judge, says the Court of Appeal, should not have asked for more. In other respects, perhaps paradoxically, the Court of Appeal finds that it was "imprudent and indeed mistaken" for the Superior Court to engage with the motion and its supporting evidence on the merits, as the authorization calls for a consideration of the surface of the evidence. What is more, the Court of Appeal is less convinced than the Superior Court that it is necessary that Ms. Sibiga's contract be filed in the court record. Since the existence of a contractual relation is not disputed, the Court of Appeal considers that, at the authorization stage, the filing of the monthly statements from the service provider and some publicly available information documents should be considered sufficient. The representative is neither a puppet nor a spearhead As to the petitioner's representative capacity, in line with the Marcotte decision of the Supreme Court (which was unavailable to the Superior Court for it was under advisement the time), the Court of Appeal concludes that the absence of a direct cause of action (here, in contract) with two of the proposed defendants should not constitute an insurmountable obstacle to a class action. The issue of the role and capacity of the petitioner to work with -- rather than for -- her attorneys proves a more delicate one: although excesses have been known to occur, entrepreneurial lawyering is not itself a bar to finding that the designated representative has the requisite interest in the suit. The genuineness of a motion is not wholly discredited merely because the proceedings bear the lawyer's scent. Here too, the Court of Appeal finds that the Superior Court failed to apply the liberal standard warranted by the Supreme Court. The class description: the burden of proof belongs to the brave Building on a comment of the Superior Court to the effect that, absent any detail concerning many of the countries where roaming costs could allegedly have been incurred or the variety of the mobile plans involved, the proposed class was unduly inclusive, defendants Bell and Telus had asked that, should the appeal be allowed, the class be restricted. The Court of Appeal declines to make such a ruling. As tempting as it might be to bring the proposed class to more common proportions, doing so would amount to prejudging the ability of the applicant to conduct her case. Again, at the authorization stage, it suffices to establish an arguable case, and this burden was met by petitioner. In any event, class definition can be reviewed by the court at the trial on common issues. Conclusion The decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal falls in line with the most recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada relating to class actions. The decision is not one for jurisprudential controversy; it rather serves to show how emphatically the highest court in the land has diluted the threshold for authorization in Quebec. Authorization is, of course, not a mere formality, a call for rubber-stamping, but it is not fatal for the evidence presented at this preliminary stage to be incomplete or imprecise. The criteria for authorization have been substantively untouched by Quebec's civil procedure reform, there is every reason to believe that there is a bright future for this liberal approach. FIRST CREDIT: Faces "Weissman" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against FirstCredit, Inc. The case is styled Ethel Weissman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. FirstCredit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05193 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2016). Founded in 1985, First Credit is a service oriented organization offering financing and insurance for manufactured housing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com FORD MOTOR: Class Plaintiffs Sue Over Exploding Sunroofs -------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a class action has been filed against Ford Motor Co. alleging that the panoramic sunroofs in 16 of its models such as the Explorer and the Edge spontaneously explode. The suit, filed Sept. 15, claims that a couple in California and a couple in Alabama were driving 60 miles per hour on a highway when their sunroofs exploded. One couple initially thought the sound was gunshots, while the other thought lightning had struck the car or a tire blown out, but in both cases they maintained that nothing hit their cars. Ford is the latest automaker to be sued over spontaneously exploding panoramic sunroofs. Another class action was filed on Dec. 10 by Girard Gibbs against Hyundai Motor Co. "These sunroofs are the newest desirable feature in that they are two or three times as large as what we would see 10 years ago in terms of sunroofs," said Paul Hanly, named shareholder at Simmons Hanly Conroy in New York, who filed the Ford case. "As we set forth in our complaint, there has been testing that suggests the tempering of the glass is insufficient, and that's the apparent reason for these shattering episodes." Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker did not respond to a request for comment. In 2014, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began investigating several automakers, including Ford, over exploding sunroofs. Volkswagen, Hyundai and Audi have had limited recalls over the defect. According to the Ford suit, more than 200 owners of vehicles with defective sunroofs have made complaints about panoramic sunroofs exploding, either to NHTSA or according to Ford's own internal data. The suit cites a 2013 study from the Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute that found enamel used for ceramic paint on panoramic sunroofs "impairs the strength of the glass." The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe reached a similar conclusion in a June report. The suit was filed on behalf of a potential class of tens of thousands of Ford customers with various year models, including several Lincoln and Mercury vehicles. GARDNER TRUCKING: Truck Drivers' Wage Class Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The Riverside employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Sept. 15 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit against Gardner Trucking, Inc., alleging the transportation company failed to pay their employees working as Truck Drivers in California for all their time spent working and allegedly failed to provide all legally required meal and rest periods under California law. The pending class action lawsuit against Gardner Trucking, Inc., is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS1614280. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other employees working as truck drivers for the company in California performed the manual task of transporting goods for Gardner Trucking, Inc. and were allegedly paid on a piece-rate basis only. Further, the class action lawsuit alleges that the Golden State truck drivers were not paid minimum wages to which they were entitled to because of Gardner's alleged failure to record all time worked. The pending class action lawsuit against Gardner Trucking, Inc. also alleges that the company failed to have a policy or practice which provided a full off-duty, thirty minute uninterrupted meal break to their California truck drivers. The lawsuit alleges that the company's alleged failure to provide the legally required meal and rest breaks is evidenced by their business records which contain no evidence of these breaks. Consequently, truck driver employees working for Gardner Trucking, Inc. allegedly forfeited meal and rest breaks without additional compensation. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Gardner Trucking, Inc. call attorney Nicholas De Blouw at (866) 771-7099. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with law offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Cheerios Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that it may not come as a surprise to breakfast consumers that Honey Nut Cheerios -- whose box features a gleeful cartoon bee dangling a honey dipper over a bowl like a magic wand -- is sugary. A lawsuit filed in federal court in California against General Mills alleges, however, that consumers have been duped into thinking the company's best-selling cereal brand is health food. The complaint, which seeks class-action status, alleges that the marketing of Honey Nut Cheerios and other sweeter Cheerios brands such as Apple Cinnamon, camouflages the amount of sucrose, glucose and fructose in the cereals to the point of violating consumers laws. The California plaintiffs' firm that brought the complaint targets the health-related claims on the packaging and in advertising. The cereals, like most food products, have a Nutrition Facts label specifying the ingredients and numbers of grams of sugar per serving. But General Mills, the lawsuit claims, plays up the cereals's more nutritious ingredients, like its abundance of whole grains, that the company says can help lower cholesterol. For years until 2013, the boxes touted a seal of approval from the American Heart Association. The lawsuit says the cereals, in reality, are really O's of doom. Citing health studies, it states: The scientific evidence is compelling: Excessive consumption of added sugar is toxic to the human body. Experimentally sound, peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses convincingly show that consuming excessive added sugar -- any amount above approximately 5% of daily caloric intake -- greatly increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, and a wide variety of other chronic morbidity. Despite the compelling evidence that sugar acts as a chronic liver toxin, detrimentally affecting health, to increase the price and sales of its products, General Mills leverages a policy and practice of marketing high-sugar cereals, bars, other foods with health and wellness claims. A General Mills spokesman said the plaintiffs are the one making misleading claims. "This lawsuit is without merit," a company spokesman told Law Blog. "Cereal has long been established as a nutritious and wholesome way to start the day, and General Mills continues to stand behind the quality of these products and the accuracy of the products' labels." The lawsuit comes at a time of shifting breakfast habits and waning demand for cereal that have pushed General Mills revenues downward. And it doesn't just target Cheerios but makes similar claims about other General Mills brands -- including Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Cocoa Puffs, Lucky Charms and Trix, and also its line of breakfast biscuits. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order General Mills to change its labeling and "pay restitution to restore funds that may have been acquired" by the company's allegedly deceptive practices. The Cheerios lawsuit is among a flurry of class-action-seeking complaints filling up the dockets in recent years, a litigation trend recently examined by the Chicago Tribune. The paper highlighted lawsuits like ones accusing Kraft Heinz of misrepresenting the contents of its Parmesan cheese and complaints alleging that Quaker Oats tricked consumers into thinking its Maple & Brown Sugar oatmeal is made with real maple syrup. The companies say they expect courts to dismiss the complaints. A labeling lawsuit recently came before the Supreme Court. That was the false-advertising case brought by Pom Wonderful about the marketing of Minute Maid pomegranate-blueberry juice. The Tribune said such lawsuits can prod food companies to be more precise and careful about their labeling, but plaintiffs can overreach: "You don't want to have your case to be the next Cap'n Crunch Berries," [food-safety lawyer Bill] Marler said. Mr. Marler referred to the 2009 lawsuit in which a California woman sued PepsiCo, parent company of Quaker Oats, alleging she was misled because Cap'n Crunch Berries cereal does not contain any real fruit. A California federal judge tossed the suit. "This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a 'crunchberry.' . . . So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world," U.S. District Judge Morrison England wrote in his opinion. Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly said that Honey Nut Cheerios was certified under the American Heart Association's food certification program. The association says it stopped certifying the cereal in the fall of 2013. GURPREET AHLUWALIA: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Breach of Lease ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN YORMAK personally, and STEVEN YORMAK on behalf of Minors EMILY YORMAK, SPENCER YORMAK AND GABRIEL YORMAK, the Plaintiffs, v. GURPREET AHLUWALIA AND GAIL AHLUWALIA, the Defendants, Case No. 16-1191 (Mass. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2016), seeks to recover damages which Defendants are liable for in law and pursuant to statutory remedies by exposing the Tenants to ongoing nuisance and negligence in regard to maintaining leased premises, in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants, who were Landlords, allegedly committed breach of warranty of habitability and quiet enjoyment under the terms of a lease relating to real property located in the Town of Wellesley in the County of Norfolk. The Defendants failed to provide receipts of monies received from the Tenants, failed to place security deposit in a separate account as defined in law, and failed to immediately return the security of deposit. Steven Yormak appears pro se. HMK LTD: "Pena" Sues Over Substandard Rental Housing ---------------------------------------------------- Joanna Pena, Sergio Rendon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HMK Ltd., Kraish H. Kraish and Hannah E. Kraish, individually, Defendants, Case No. DC-16-11377, (S.D. Tex.., September 8, 2016), seeks damages, statutory remedies, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees, pre and post judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Texas Property Code. HMK Ltd. lease hundreds of properties throughout Dallas County. Plaintiffs have been parties to HMK standard residential lease which violates provisions of Texas Property Code including Sections 92.006 and 92.0563(g) meaning no plumbing, no heating, infested by rats and other vermin, missing doors, roofs with large holes and collapsed floors. One such property is at 827 Lomas Street in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, where Joanna Pena and Sergio Rendon reside. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Hindman, Esq. HINDMAN AND BYNUM P.C. 5000 Greenville Ave., Ste. 200 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: (214) 941-4611 Fax: (469) 906-2340 Email: michael.hindman@hindmanbynum.com - and - Mark A. Ticer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER Jennifer V. Johnson 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75204 Tel: (214)219-4220 Fax: (214)219-4218 Email: mticer@ticerlaw.com jjohnson@ticerlaw.com HONEST COMPANY: Faces "Hiddlestone" Suit in C.D. of California -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against The Honest Company, Inc. The case is titled Candace Hiddlestone and Julie Hedges, each individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. The Honest Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07054- FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Fernando M. Olguin. The Honest Company is an American consumer goods company, co- founded by actress Jessica Alba, that emphasizes non-toxic household products to supply the marketplace for ethical consumerism. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A Carlin, Esq. Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Esq. PHILLIPS ERLEWINE GIVEN AND CARLIN LLP 39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 398 0900 Facsimile: (415) 398 0911 E-mail: nac@phillaw.com bsc@phillaw.com - and - Jon William Borderud, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JON BORDERUD 2028 Cliff Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93109 Telephone: (310) 621 7004 E-mail: borderudlaw@cox.net - and - Leonard B Simon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD SIMON PC 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 4549 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 E-mail: lsimon@rgrdlaw.com - and - Rebecca Anne Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0981 E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com HSBC HOLDINGS: Class Action Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that HSBC Holdings Plc on Sept. 15 won the dismissal of a lawsuit by former Bernard Madoff customers who accused the British bank of fuelling his massive Ponzi scheme by ignoring red flags and encouraging "feeder funds" to invest with him. U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan said a federal law governing securities fraud cases prevented the plaintiffs from bringing their class-action claims against HSBC's U.S. unit. She also said she lacked jurisdiction over claims against the HSBC parent and non-U.S. affiliates. Jason Zweig, a lawyer for the customers, declined to comment because he was reviewing the decision. HSBC spokesman Rob Sherman declined to provide immediate comment. The customers filed the lawsuit in December 2014, after a federal appeals court said the trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC lacked standing to sue HSBC, JPMorgan Chase & Co and other banks he accused of aiding Madoff's fraud. In their complaint, the customers said HSBC sold structured financial products that resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to Madoff through feeder funds. They also said HSBC looked the other way when encountering signs of fraud, to help sate its "unquenchable thirst" for fees. The customers said their accounts with Madoff were not "covered securities," barring them from pursuing their case, because the con man had total discretion over their money. But the judge said the customers expected Madoff to invest their cash in covered securities, which are traded nationally and listed on a regulated national exchange, to achieve the "extraordinary" returns for which he had at the time been known. "That plaintiffs had no control over which particular investment strategy Madoff undertook or specific securities he purchased does not obviate the fact that plaintiffs were seeking, directly or indirectly, to purchase covered securities," Swain wrote. "Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims are barred." Mr. Madoff, 78, pleaded guilty to fraud in March 2009, three months after his scheme was uncovered. He is serving a 150-year prison term. The trustee, Irving Picard, has recouped roughly $11.2 billion for former Madoff customers. The case is Hill et al v HSBC Bank Plc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-09745. IHEARTMEDIA INC: Ponderosa Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement -------------------------------------------------------------- Ponderosa Twins Plus One and Ricky Spicer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. iHeartmedia, Inc., Spotify USA, Inc., Google Inc., Apple Inc., Pandora Media, Inc., Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC, Deezer, Inc. and Soundcloud, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02258, (S.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), seeks actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, disgorgement of all profits earned by Defendants from reproducing, distributing, publicly performing and otherwise exploiting their pre-1972 recordings in internet and terrestrial radio services, constructive trust on any money acquired by means of Defendants' conversion including all gross receipts attributable to Defendants' conversion of the pre-1972 recordings, prejudgment and post judgment interest on any monetary relief, equitable relief enjoining future unauthorized use of the pre-1972 recordings in internet and terrestrial radio services, costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and all and any other relief resulting from misappropriation, conversion and unfair competition and violation of common law copyright infringement. Plaintiffs were a singing group in the 60s who claim to own the copyrights inherent in the sound recording of the songs "Bound," "Bound 2." They assert the Defendants illegally broadcasted their songs. Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Liakos, Esq. Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Paul B. Maslo, Esq. Salvatore C. Badala, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 331-8224 Fax: (646) 843-7603 Email: jliakos@napolilaw.com hunter@napolilaw.com pnapoli@napolilaw.com pmaslo@napolilaw.com sbadala@napolilaw.com - and - Brittany Weiner, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Tel: (212) 736-0007 Email: brittany@lawicm.com INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $55MM Settlement Granted Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2016, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") on September 8, 2016, granted final approval of the previously announced agreement with the lead plaintiff to settle the purported securities class action litigation, styled In re: Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company" or "Intercept") and certain of its officers. The settlement included the payment of $55 million, of which $10 million was funded by the Company's insurers. The defendants do not admit any liability as part of the settlement. The final judgment and order of the Court included a dismissal of the action with prejudice against all defendants. ISORAY INC: 10-Day Jury Trial Scheduled for June 18, 2018 --------------------------------------------------------- IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In Re IsoRay, Inc. Securities Litigation: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, filed October 16, 2015, a ten-day jury trial is scheduled for June 18, 2018. On May 22, 2015, the first of three lawsuits was filed against IsoRay, Inc. and two of its officers -- Dwight Babcock (the Company's retired CEO) and Brien Ragle, CFO -- related to a press release on May 20, 2015 regarding a May 19 online publication of the peer-reviewed article in the journal Brachytherapy titled "Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation vs. Wedge Resection vs. Wedge Resection Plus Cesium-131 Brachytherapy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer" by Dr. Bhupesh Parashar, et al. The lawsuits are class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws. By Order dated August 17, 2015, all of the pending lawsuits were consolidated into one case -- In re IsoRay, Inc. Securities Litigation; Case No. 4:15-cv-05046-LRS, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. On October 16, 2015, an amended complaint was filed with more detailed allegations relating to alleged violations of federal securities laws. On December 15, 2015, IsoRay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint altogether. On June 1, 2016, the court entered an order denying IsoRay's motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint's allegations, if accepted as true, state a plausible claim to relief. The order did not adjudicate the merits of the lawsuit. No other issues were decided in the ruling. On June 15, 2016, IsoRay filed their answer to the amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs motion for class certification is due to be filed no later than January 5, 2017. As of this filing, a ten-day jury trial is scheduled for June 18, 2018 along with a timeline for pre-trial actions by both IsoRay and the Lead Plaintiffs. Management believes this suit is without merit and will continue to defend against it vigorously. "Securities litigation is a lengthy, costly and unpredictable process. Currently management does not believe that a loss resulting from these claims is probable or reasonably estimable in amount. However, failure by IsoRay to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition," the Company said. ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Long" Suit Seeks 60 Days Pay, Benefits Recovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christin M. Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02399, (S.D. Ind., September 7, 2016), seeks damages in the amount of sixty days' pay and benefits, monetary damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. ITT Educational Services abruptly closed the doors of approximately 130 campuses in 38 states without advance warning to its employees, immediately leaving more than 8,000 workers unemployed. Long worked as a campus director at ITT's location in Strongsville, Ohio that closed on September 6, 2016. Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Jessica L. Titler, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: BFJ@chimicles.com AWF@chimicles.com JT@chimicles.com J.J.F. CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Goodson" Suit in M.D. of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against J.J.F. Construction & Property Management, Inc. The case is captioned Bradley Goodson, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. J.J.F. Construction & Property Management, Inc., a Florida profit corporation; Jarek Freund, individually; Slawomir Freund, individually; Ariel Freund, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00708-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2016). JJF Construction serves quality construction remodeling. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 967 5377 Facsimile: (954) 327 3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Loeza" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed an order dismissing the Plaintiffs-appellants' Fourth Amended Complaint in the putative class action styled as, MARY LOEZA, MATT WARD, CARMINA McCORMACK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, GREGORY SCRYDOFF, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN DOES 1-10, JOHN DOES 1-100, BERNADETTE J. ULISSI, DAVID C. NOVAK, STEPHEN B. BURKE, LEE R. RAYMOND, WILLIAM WELDON, JAMES DIMON, INA R. DREW, NORMAN CORIO, SALLY DURDAN, JPMORGAN RETIREMENT PLAN, JPMORGAN COMPENSATION 7 MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, JPMORGAN CHASE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, Defendants, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN, JOHN WILMOT, Defendants- Appellees. The Complaint alleges that the defendants, who are JPMorgan corporate insiders and named fiduciaries of the JPMorgan Chase & Co. 401(k) Savings Plan, were imprudent in failing to prevent the Fund from purchasing JPMorgan stock at a price inflated by alleged securities fraud related to certain trading activities undertaken by the firm's Chief Investment Office. The district court concluded that the Complaint failed to plausibly allege that a prudent fiduciary could not conclude that freezing purchases or disclosing the alleged securities fraud would cause the Fund more harm than good, as is required to be alleged as provided in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S.Ct. 2459 (2014). The Second Circuit found that the district court properly dismissed the Complaint after reviewing the case and concluded that the allegations are wholly conclusory and materially indistinguishable from the allegations that the Supreme Court found insufficient in Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 136 S.Ct. 758 (2016) (per curiam). A copy of the Court's Order dated September 8, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/r9KIuu from Leagle.com. SAMUEL E. BONDEROFF (Jacob H. Zamansky, on the brief), Zamansky LLC, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II -- peppermanr@sullcrom.com -- (M. David Possick, Daryl A. Libow, on the brief), Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, New York, and Washington, D.C., for Defendants- Appellees. JUNO THERAPEUTICS: "Paradisco" Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- Liberata Paradisco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Hans E. Bishop and Steven D. Harr, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01425 (W.D. Wash., September 7, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, damages, reasonable costs and expenses and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Juno is a biopharmaceutical company that is developing cell-based cancer immunotherapies. Its leading product candidate is JCAR015, which is currently in clinical trials. In May 2016, a patient in the Phase 2 trial of JCAR015 died of a cerebral edema, a form of neurotoxicity. The following June or early July, two more patients in the trial died of cerebral edemas. This caused the FDA to issue a clinical hold and forced Defendants to reveal the truth, which they finally did on July 7, 2016, after the market closed. On this news, the Company's share price fell $13.01, or 31.87%, to close at $27.81 on July 8, 2016. Plaintiff acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially after this. The Defendant is represented by: Duncan C. Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 Facsimile: (206) 621-9686 Email: duncanturner@badgleymullins.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 KAS DIRECT LLC: "Mayhew" Files Suit Over False Product Ad --------------------------------------------------------- Tanya Mayhew and Tanveer Alibhai, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kas Direct, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-06981, (S.D. N.Y., September &, 2016), seeks appropriate damages, restitution or disgorgement of all monetary relief, enjoinment from all fraudulent, deceptive, unlawful, and illegal conduct, equitable remedies, attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest and such further relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of New York General Business Laws, California's Unfair Competition Law, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Fair Advertising Law. KAS Direct, LLC develops, manufactures, markets, and sells a variety of baby care, sun protection, and cleaning products for babies which are sold under the brand name "Babyganics." Plaintiff disputes Defendant's claim that their products are organic in nature, alleging that they contain synthetic chemicals. Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tel: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Katherine Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Tel: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com kvandyck@cuneolaw.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Amy E. Boyle, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eight Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 Email: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com boyle@halunenlaw.com KENYA COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Over M-Pesa-Based Loans ------------------------------------------------------------ TVC News reports that KCB and Commercial Bank of Africa face consumer class-action intended to compel the lenders to cut their M-Pesa based loans in line with the new interest rate caps which have taken effect. The two banks have insisted that their M-Pesa-linked mobile loans are not subject to the new law, which limits maximum interest chargeable on loans to not more than four per cent above the Central Bank Rate. The Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek) has given the two lenders a 48-hour notice to cut the interest rate payable on KCB M-Pesa and M-Shwari loans to a maximum of 14.5 per cent per annum or face court action. Privately-owned CBA, which offers M-Shwari microloans, says it will continue levying a one-off 7.5 per cent fee on the loan amount; while KCB argues that mobile-based loans fall under the realm of micro-finance. KERYX PHARMA: Oct. 3 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the October 3, 2016 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Keryx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (NASDAQ: KERX) securities between September 2, 2013, and August 1, 2016, inclusive. Keryx investors have October 3, 2016 to file a lead plaintiff motion. The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing production-related difficulties in converting API to finished drug product; (2) that the issue was resulting in decreased production yields of finished drug product; (3) that, as a result, the Company would, and did exhaust its reserve of finished drug product; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Keryx's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Keryx shares during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 3, 2016 to request appointment as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Securities Fraud Class Action Filed ----------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announced on September 20, 2016, that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of LifeVantage Corporation (NASDAQ:LFVN) between November 4, 2015 and September 13, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers. If you purchased shares of LifeVantage during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold LifeVantage, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/lifevantage-corporation- lfvn. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) LifeVantage lacked effective internal financial controls; (2) as a result, the Company had improperly accounted for sales in certain international markets, along with associated revenue and income tax accruals; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, LifeVantage's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on September 13, 2016, post-market, LifeVantage issued a press release and filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing a delay in the release of the Company's fourth quarter and fiscal year 2016 financial results. In the release, the Company indicated that it was "in the process of reviewing its sales into certain international markets and the revenue and income tax accruals associated with such sales. . . . The review relates to sales of the Company's products in certain international markets and the determination of revenue and the deductibility of commission and incentive expenses associated with such sales, as well as the policies and procedures related to sales in those specific markets." On this news, shares of LifeVantage dropped over 12%, closing at $9.08 per share on September 14, 2016, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 14, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. L'OREAL: Faces Class-Action Suit Over Softsheen Carson Relaxer -------------------------------------------------------------- Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetics News, reports that L'Oreal is facing a class action suit after two users of its Softsheen Carson Optimum Amla Legend Relaxer Kit alleged that it caused bald spots to develop, according to a report published by Yahoo Beauty. The suit, which was filed in a Los Angeles district court, seeks damages for the alleged scalp irritation, burns and hair loss suffered by the two plaintiffs and charges L'Oreal with false advertising, fraud and negligence. Several further plaintiffs are expected to join. If successful, damages could reach up to US$100 million, according to law firm Geragos & Geragos. A L'Oreal spokesperson told Buzzfeed, "We do not believe the allegations in this lawsuit have merit. For more than 100 years, L'Oreal has been committed to the safety of its consumers." LAS MERCEDES: "Sosa" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled IRAINI SOSA, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. LAS MERCEDES PHARMACY, INC., a Florida profit corporation; JORGE RAAD, individually; and MARLON MUNOZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 16-019881 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23971- UU to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Ursula Ungaro. Las Mercedes Pharmacy is a community/retail pharmacy in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Debra M. Leder, Esq. Sarah Marie DeFranco, Esq. AKERMAN SENTERFITT & EIDSON Las Olas Centre 350 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1600 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-0006 Telephone: (954) 463 2700 Facsimile: (954) 463 2224 E-mail: debra.leder@akerman.com sarah.defranco@akerman.com LOCK BUSTERS: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------- ROBERT RIVERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOCK BUSTERS, INC, dba POP-A-LOCK, a Florida for Profit Corporation, and LOCK BUSTERS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC d/b/a POP-A-LOCK, a Florida for Profit Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01644-PGB-GJK (Fla. Cir. Ct., Sep. 20, 2016), seeks damages in excess of $15,000.00 against Defendants for failure to pay overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant routinely failed to pay overtime compensation for hours work in a week in excess of 40 hours. The Plaintiff worked as Technician for the Defendants during the 3-year period prior to the filing of his complaint. Lock Busters is a 24-hour complete locksmith service, providing everything from car door unlocking to residential and commercial locksmith services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Lytie, Esq. David V. Barszcz, Esq. Robert N. Sutton, Esq. LYTIE & BARSZCZM PA 543 N. Wymore Road, Ste 103 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 622 6544 Facsimile: (407) 622 6545 E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney rsutton@lblaw.attorney LOYALTYONE: Faces Class Action Over Air Miles Rewards Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that a Calgary law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against LoyaltyOne, the company that owns and operates the Air Miles rewards program in Canada. The proposed lawsuit claims that its aim is to "remedy harm caused by the Air Miles program to its users." JSS Barristers filed the suit on Sept. 14 at the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta on behalf of all Canadian Air Miles members who possessed any "Dream" reward miles on or after Dec. 28, 2011. The case must be certified in court before it can proceed. The lawsuit's statement of claim alleges that Air Miles "engaged in unfair practices" that include introducing an expiry policy without adequate notice and making it "increasingly difficult" for members to redeem miles that start expiring on Jan. 1. "The net result is that Air Miles' conduct will result in a large number of the class [action] members' miles expiring, resulting in a significant loss to the class, and a corresponding large windfall for Air Miles," claims the court document. Difficult redemption? In late 2011, Air Miles quietly announced a new five-year expiry rule for miles, effective Dec. 31 of that year. That means that on Jan.1, 2017, any unused miles collected before 2012 will disappear and become worthless. The popular rewards program launched in Canada in 1992 and boasts about 11 million members. Your Air Miles could expire soon: What you need to know After CBC News ran a story in July about the looming expiry date, we heard from many frustrated members who said they were having difficulties redeeming their miles before they vanished. The class action's statement of claim alleges that hurdles customers have faced trying to cash in their miles include: Long waits to speak to Air Miles customer service by phone. Not allowing members to redeem soon-to-expire miles for cash rewards. Being blocked from some rewards when members actually have enough miles to buy them. The suit also claims that Air Miles promoted its loyalty program with the "promise to bring you the best in service," and that customers reasonably expected fair treatment from the program. It also states that Air Miles benefits financially from its members when they shop at specified retailers to earn miles. "Primarily the members, the class members are alleging that they've not been treated fairly and are seeking redress for that," said Andrew Wilson, one of the lawyers who filed the suit. Damages for class-action members have not yet been specified. LoyaltyOne told CBC News that it is reviewing the statement of claim and has no comment at this time. LoyaltyOne is headquartered in Toronto and its parent company, Alliance Data, is based in Texas. 'Junk' rewards? The representative plaintiff in the lawsuit is David Helm from Red Deer, Alta. He has been collecting Air Miles since the 1990s. Mr. Helm told CBC News he found out about the new expiry rule in 2014 from his neighbor. Since then, Mr. Helm said, he's been struggling to find ways to redeem his soon-to-expire miles and is still stuck with about 1,700 of them. "The only stuff that's available to me is junk that I don't want." Mr. Helm recently set his sights on two flights to Texas, but said that when he attempted to book the trip, the flights had disappeared. Mr. Helms said he also tried to get a TV that his girlfriend can find available when she logs in using her Air Miles membership. However, she doesn't have enough points to buy the product. Mr. Helm does, but claimed Air Miles won't give him access to it. Other Air Miles members have complained to CBC News that they've had a similar experience of being blocked from some rewards once they have enough miles to buy them. Air Miles told CBC that members who are more active in the program get access to more rewards. Mr. Helms said he doesn't buy it. Instead, his experience has led him to conclude that the rewards program wants to make it difficult for members to redeem all their miles that will expire in the new year. "They're trying to let as many Air Miles expire as possible, because it's money in their pocket." LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Clara" Suit Moved from Cal. to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------- ---------------- The class action lawsuit titled Clara Coleman, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06681, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09095 to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Milton I. Shadur. Lumber Liquidators is specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851 3850 Facsimile: (818) 851 3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert R Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Sesti" Suit Moved from Cal. to W.D. Tenn. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jeremy Sesti and Brittney Sesti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06702, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02752-JPM-dkv to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Jon Phipps McCalla. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851 3850 Facsimile: (818) 851 3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert R Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Norris" Suit Transferred to S.D. Miss. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Richard Norris, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06688, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Hattiesburg). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00144-KS-MTP to the proceeding. The assigned District Judge is Hon. Keith Starrett. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851 3850 Facsimile: (818) 851 3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474 9111 Facsimile: (310) 474 8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Page" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to S.D. Iowa ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gary Page, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06565, was transferred from the the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (Central). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00503 to the proceeding. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851 3850 Facsimile: (818) 851 3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474 9111 Facsimile: (310) 474 8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Myers" Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisc. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Allen Myers, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No., 2:16-cv-06698, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00628 to the proceeding. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851 3850 Facsimile: (818) 851 3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474 9111 Facsimile: (310) 474 8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Perel" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to E.D. Va. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Logan Perel, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-06685, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02789-AJT- TRJ to the proceeding. The assigned District Judge is Hon. Anthony J Trenga. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851 3850 Facsimile: (818) 851 3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474 9111 Facsimile: (310) 474 8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Wieland" Suit Transferred to D. Neb. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Alex Wieland, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-06704, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska (Omaha). The Nebraska District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00431-RFR-TDT to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851 3850 Facsimile: (818) 851 3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474 9111 Facsimile: (310) 474 8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com MADISON COUNTY, IL: Bid Rigging Class Action Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------- Taryn Phaneuf, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that an attorney representing distressed property owners in a proposed bid rigging class action reacted positively to the ruling that allows the case to proceed. "From the plaintiff's side, we were pretty happy with it," said Steven C. Giacoletto -- sgiacoletto@scglawoffice.com -- of Giacoletto Law Office. Federal prosecutors, who brought down former Madison County treasurer Fred Bathon and tax buyers, say that between 2005 and 2009, tax buyers engaged in price fixing by only bidding the statutory maximum interest rate of 18 percent. The rigging was so pervasive that distressed homeowners were charged the maximum rate on nearly every property tax lien sold during that period. While the Fifth District panel agreed with visiting Judge William Becker's certification of a class on liability, the appellate judges found that each case would have to be reviewed to determine individual damages. "Without a methodology to calculate damages on a class-wide basis and given the unique characteristics of real property as well as the subjective nature of the bidding process, we conclude that the calculation of actual damages would be too individualized to be handled as part of the class action," the ruling states. The court's conclusion doesn't slam the door on certifying a class for damages, though, Mr. Giacoletto said. Instead, the decision points to a possibility of the circuit court certifying subclasses on damages once liability is proven. "At some point, we're going to have to get more specific on the damage formula," he said. Plaintiffs attorneys will continue to review the decision before deciding whether any aspect is worth an appeal, he added. He thinks summary judgment could settle the liability claims ahead of a trial. An attorney representing Madison County declined to comment. MADISON COUNTY, IL: Appeals Court Modifies Class in "Bueker" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, affirms in part as modified, and vacates in part the motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit styled BUEKER v. MADISON COUNTY, Case No. 2016 IL App (5th) 150282. Plaintiffs Scott Bueker, Virgil Straeter, and Richeson Real Estate, LLC, filed a motion for class certification. They sought to recover damages for alleged losses resulting from the manner in which former Madison County Treasurer Fred Bathon conducted property tax sale auctions from 2005 through 2008. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court of Madison County granted class certification. For the reasons stated in the opinion, the Appellate Court affirms in part as modified, vacates in part, and remand for further proceedings. Justice Welch delivered the judgment of the Appellate Court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Schwarm and Justice Chapman concurred in the judgment and opinion. The Appellate Court concludes that, whereas a class certified for liability purposes would not be an abuse of the Circuit Court's discretion, a class certified for liability as well as damages would be, as the individualized damage determinations will predominate over the common issues of establishing liability. Thus, the class certification remains as to liability, but the Appellate Court partially decertify the class for the individual damages determination in light of the need for individualized proof. In addition, the Appellate Court opines that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in certifying a class that included the sale in error claim against Madison County and Kurt Prenzler (County Treasurer) and money had and received claim against Madison County. Accordingly, the Appellate Court vacates the Circuit Court's certification order as it applies to the sale in error claim alleged against Madison County as well as Prenzler and the money had and received claim alleged against Madison County, as these claims should be dismissed. The cause is remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed. The original case is titled SCOTT BUEKER, VIRGIL STRAETER, and RICHESON REAL ESTATE, LLC, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS; FRED BATHON; KURT PRENZLER, in His Official Capacity as Madison County Treasurer; JIM FOLEY; ALAN J. DUNSTAN; MARK VON NIDA; BARRETT ROCHMAN; KENNETH ROCHMAN; BLUE SKY VINEYARDS, LLC; CDBR, LLC; SABRE GROUP, LLC; SI SECURITIES, LLC; DENNIS BALLINGER, JR.; EMPIRE TAX CORPORATION; VISTA SECURITIES, INC.; JOHN VASSEN; JOSEPH VASSEN; V.I. INC.; SCOTT McLEAN; LAND OF LINCOLN SECURITIES, LLC; PRAIRIE STATE SECURITIES, LLC; ROBERT LUKEN; LUKEN INVESTMENT CO.; SCOTT SIERON; RAVEN SECURITIES, INC.; ILLINOIS MOBILE HOMES, LLC; ILLINOIS REALTY GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC; ILLINOIS REALTY GROUP, LLC; JOHN W. SCOTT; EDWARD BEASLEY; RLI INSURANCE CO.; and WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Defendants, (Madison County, Illinois; Jim Foley; Barrett Rochman; Kenneth Rochman; Blue Sky Vineyards, LLC; CDBR, LLC; Sabre Group, LLC; SI Securities, LLC; Dennis Ballinger, Jr.; Empire Tax Corporation; Vista Securities, Inc.; John Vassen; Joseph Vassen; V.I. Inc.; Scott Sieron; Raven Securities, Inc.; Illinois Mobile Homes, LLC; Illinois Realty Group Holdings, LLC; and Illinois Realty Group, LLC, Defendants-Petitioners), Case No. 5-13-0554, in the Circuit Court of Madison County. A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/3Bb6Hq from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs-Appellees Scott Bueker, Richeson Real Estate, LLC, and Virgil Straeter are represented by: Steven C. Giacoletto, Esq. GIACOLETTO LAW OFFICE, P.C. 30 Summer Tree Lane Collinsville, IL 62234 Telephone: (618) 346-8841 E-mail: sgiacoletto@scglawoffice.com - and - Aaron G. Weishaar, Esq. Boris A. Kaupp, Esq. REINERT, WEISHAAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 812 North Collins, Laclede's Landing St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-5743 Facsimile: (314) 621-8071 E-mail: aweishaar@rwalawfirm.com bkaupp@rwalawfirm.com - and - Nelson L. Mitten, Esq. Paul A. Grote, Esq. RIEZMAN BERGER P.C. 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Seventh Floor St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 727-0101 E-mail: mitten@riezmanberger.com grote@riezmanberger.com Defendants Blue Sky Vineyards, LLC, CDBR, LLC, Barrett Rochman, Kenneth Rochman, Sabre Group, LLC, and SI Securities, LLC, are represented by: Andrew R. Kasnetz, Esq. Timothy C. Sansone, Esq. Natalie J. Kussart, Esq. Michele L. Parrish, Esq. SANDBERG, PHOENIX & VON GONTARD, P.C. 600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor St. Louis, MO 63101-1313 Telephone: (314) 446-4251 E-mail: akasnetz@sandbergphoenix.com tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com nkussart@sandbergphoenix.com Defendants Dennis Ballinger, Jr., Empire Tax Corporation, Vista Securities, Inc., are represented by: Gordon B. Nash, Esq. Daniel J. Delaney, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1698 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 569-1384 Facsimile: (312) 569-3384 E-mail: gordon.nash@dbr.com daniel.delaney@dbr.com Defendants V.I. Inc., John Vassen and Joseph Vassen are represented by: Paul T. Slocomb, Esq. HOFFMAN & SLOCOMB 1115 Locust Street, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 436-7800 Telephone: (314) 231-0323 E-mail: paulslocomb@yahoo.com Defendants Illinois Mobile Homes, LLC, Illinois Realty Group Holdings, LLC, Illinois Realty Group, LLC, Raven Securities, Inc., and Scott Sieron are represented by: Alvin C. Paulson, Esq. PAULSON LAW FIRM 5111 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62226 Telephone: (618) 235-0020 Facsimile: (618) 235-8558 E-mail: acp@acplawfirm.com Defendants-Appellants James Foley and Madison County, Illinois, are represented by: Craig L. Unrath, Esq. HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN 300 Hamilton Blvd. P.O. Box 6199 Peoria, IL 61601-6199 Telephone: (312) 853-8700 E-mail: cunrath@heylroyster.com - and - Michael D. Schag, Esq. Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. Ann C. Barron, Esq. HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN 105 West Vandalia, Suite 100 P.O. Box 467 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-4646 Telephone: (618) 656-7940 E-mail: mschag@heylroyster.com pcloud@heylroyster.com abarron@heylroyster.com MANSUETO VENTURES: Class Certification Bid in "Bush" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. District Judge Paul D. Borman entered an order in the lawsuit captioned JULIE BUSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MANSUETO VENTURES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On October 20, 2015, simultaneous with the filing of the Complaint, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify Class. The Plaintiff explained that the motion was being filed as a precautionary measure to thwart any effort by Defendant to "pick off" Plaintiff's claim in an effort to moot her representative claim. Since the filing of the motion, the Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), the parties have submitted a joint discovery plan, and the Court has set a cut-off date of October 24, 2016, for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court determines that there is no need to leave the placeholder motion pending and will therefore deny without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hRR7Wb7p MANUEL VALDIVA: "Oliveros" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Jose Oliveros, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Manuel Valdiva, Defendant, Case No. 6:16- cv-01148, (E.D. Tex., September 7, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses and costs, including expert witness fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Manuel Valdiva owns Kayla's Furniture located in Lindale, Texas where Plaintiff worked as a carpenter. He claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 1404 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: (903) 596-7100 Fax: (469) 533-1618 MASTERCARD: Faces One of the UK's First Class-Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Webber -- chris.webber@squirepb.com -- and Helen Cain -- helen.cain@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs Law Firm, in an article for National Law Review, report that class actions have long been a feature of the US legal landscape. But until October 2015 there was no genuine "class action" procedure in the UK. Then the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ("CRA") introduced collective proceedings that can be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") by representatives of consumers or businesses. While previously the UK had "opt-in" group litigation orders, these were really just a means of organising litigation where large numbers of claimants were actively pursuing similar claims. The CRA permitted "opt-out" collective actions for the first time. In "opt-out" cases anyone resident in the UK who is within the defined class is automatically included in the action unless they opt out. There is no need for the representatives to identify all of the members or specify their losses. If the claim succeeds, aggregate damages will be awarded to the group of claimants (as opposed to an individualised assessment for each claimant). Initially, the Government's intention was to exclude funders, law firms and special purpose vehicles from acting as representatives for either consumers or businesses in collective proceedings. But no such provision was incorporated into the legislation or the CAT rules. The new CRA regime will apply retrospectively. Collective proceedings are to be expected in respect of competition law infringements which have historically been identified by the UK and/or EU competition authorities. The consumer class action against MasterCard MasterCard now finds itself faced with a legal challenge brought by a representative under the CRA on behalf of consumers, on an "opt-out" basis. Multilateral Interchange Fees ("MIFs") The action relates to a previous finding by the EU Commission that MasterCard's MIFs were kept unfairly high. Interchange fees are paid by a retailer's card acceptance provider to a consumer's card issuer (such as MasterCard) every time a card transaction takes place. The retailer's bank pays the retailer the cost of the goods/services, less a service charge that is largely determined by the level of MIF. Retailers then pass on the cost of accepting card payments to their customers, by way of increased retail prices. Interchange fees can be bilaterally agreed between the issuing bank and the retailers bank, or, the default fee established multilaterally by MasterCard (the MIF) will apply. The MIF should be limited to no more than 0.3% on credit cards and 0.2% on debit cards. European Commission decision In 2007, the European Commission issued a decision against MasterCard which was applicable to cross-border transactions using MasterCard and Maestro credit and debit cards in the European Economic Area. It found that MasterCard's MIF breached Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU"), because they restricted competition between retailers' banks and inflated the cost of card acceptance by retailers. The Article 101(3) exemptions were not satisfied. MasterCard failed in an appeal and in September 2014 the European Court of Justice confirmed that MasterCard's MIF restricted competition. Current collective proceedings The representative of the consumer proceedings is Walter Merricks CBE, who was previously the Chief Financial Services Ombudsman and is a non-practising solicitor. Mr Merricks has instructed a law firm to file the claim. This includes a plan for managing the claim -- it is said that "the proposed class of 46 million consumers will be communicated with through a claims website, newspapers, magazines and social media". It is reported that the claim has been quantified at GBP14 billion worth of charges borne by consumers. The claim relates to MasterCard's MIF to 2008, as following the European Commission judgment referred to above, MasterCard undertook to reduce its cross-border MIF to the recommended level. A litigation funder will provide funding of up to GBP40 million to Mr Merricks and his legal advisers. The Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard decision The recent judgment in Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard Incorporated and others is likely to have an impact on this consumer action. In 2012, Sainsbury's filed a claim against MasterCard UK seeking damages for loss suffered by Sainsbury's due to MasterCard's infringement of competition law, through its setting of the UK MIF. On 14 July 2016, the CAT awarded Sainsbury's GBP68.5 million plus interest, ruling that MasterCard had restricted competition by setting fees on card transactions in the UK. MEDIVATION INC: "Klein" Action Seeks to Block Pfizer Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, plaintiff, v. Medivation, Inc., David T. Hung, Kim D. Blickenstaff, Kathryn E. Falberg, Michael L. King, Patrick Machado, Dawn Svoronos, W. Anthony Vernon, and Wendy L. Yarno, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05154, (N.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), seeks enjoinment of the Defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed acquisition of Medivation by Pfizer, Inc.. The suit seeks damages, reasonable attorneys and experts fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Medivation shareholders stand to receive $81.50 per share in cash via a tender offer by Montreal, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the deal is inadequate and is the result of a rushed sale process during which the Board caved to pressure from larger pharmaceutical companies that were eager to acquire Medivation at a discount to its intrinsic value and long-term prospects. Medivation is a biopharmaceutical company based in San Francisco, California providing drugs used in the treatment of various cancers. Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 Email: brohr@faruqilaw.com bheikali@faruqilaw.com MEDPRO GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Carrel" Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled GRETCHEN B. CARREL, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MEDPRO GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00130-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order granting a motion for conditional class certification on Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims. The class is defined as: "all of the Defendant's current and former non-exempt employees who received Long Term Incentive Plan (Long Term Incentive Plan) bonuses in any year since 2013, and who also worked overtime in that same year." The notice as edited by the parties and modified by the Order, and the Consent to Join Lawsuit are approved. The Defendant is ordered to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel, within 5 business days of the date of the Order, a document in useable electronic form that discloses the names, last known addresses, and last known personal email addresses of all potential plaintiffs. The opt-in period is 60 days, beginning 10 business days after the Defendant produces the contact information. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly calculate her regular rate of pay for overtime purposes when it did not include in her regular rate of pay the bonus payments she received under the Defendant's LTIP. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EDsOqHF3 MEGGITT INC: "Tully" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGANA TULLY, Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEGGITT (NORTH HOLLYWOOD) INC, a California Corporation; MEGGITT- USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC634241 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 19, 2016), seeks to recover accurate compensation, including overtime compensation under the Labor Code. The Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were and are allegedly denied meal and rest periods and meal and rest period payments. Moreover, the Defendant failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements and failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for necessary business expenditures. The Defendant also failed to provide all compensation due at termination of employment. Meggitt provides flow control equipment. The Company offers manufacturing fans, pumps, pressure compressors, electric motors, regenerative drives, controllers, and energy dissipators to defense, marine, and aerospace sectors. The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Sullivan, Esq. Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Clint S. Engleson, Esq. SULLIVAN LAW GROUP APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702 6760 Facsimile: (619) 702 6761 E-mail: Helen@sullivanlawgroupllp.com yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupllp.com cengleson@sullivanlawgroupllp.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Fekete" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Encore Capital Group, Inc. The case is styled Feige Pearl Fekete, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05229 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 20, 2016). Encore Capital, and subsidiaries form the largest publicly traded debt buyer by revenue in the United States. They purchase "portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables from major banks, credit unions, and utility providers," and recover collectable debt from these accounts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com MISONIX INC: Shareholders File Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notified on September 20, 2016, investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Misonix, Inc., and certain of its officers. The class action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Misonix securities between November 5, 2015 through September 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On September 14, 2016, Misonix revealed that it will delay its Annual Report filing on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 due to the pending investigation by Misonix's Audit Committee in connection to its defects in internal control over financial reporting at June 30, 2016. Following this news, Misonix stock dropped during intraday trading on September 15, 2016. According to the Compaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) insufficiencies existed in Misonix's internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) consequently, Defendants' statements about Misonix's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/msonor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in Misonix you have until November 18, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow LLP Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on Sept. 15 disclosed that it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Iron Workers District Counsel of New England Pension Fund against MoneyGram International, Inc. ("MoneyGram" or the "Company"), its controlling shareholder, certain of its senior executives, principal shareholders, and the underwriters of MoneyGram's secondary public offering completed on or around April 2, 2014 (the "Offering"). The action, which is captioned Iron Workers District Counsel of New England Pension Fund v. MoneyGram International Inc., No. 15-cv-00402-LPS (D. Del.), was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of MoneyGram pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering. MoneyGram provides money transfer and payment services, and earns most of its revenues through a network of sending and receiving retail agents, of whom Walmart is the largest such agent. The complaint alleges that MoneyGram, its controlling shareholder, certain of its officers and directors, and underwriters of the Offering, violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse information in offering documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding Walmart's possible entry into the money transfer business and the potential effect it would have on MoneyGram. The true state of Walmart's entry into the money transfer business was revealed on April 17, 2014, just over two weeks after the Offering closed, when Walmart announced that it would launch its own money transfer product beginning on April 24, 2014. In response to this news, MoneyGram's stock price fell by nearly 30 percent. If you purchased or acquired MoneyGram common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware no later than November 14, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm The Iron Workers District Counsel of New England Pension Fund is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half century of securities litigation experience, more than 60 full- time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. MORTGAGE GUARANTY: 11th Cir. OKs Dismissal of "Arencibia" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiff's class-action lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), in the case, ARIEL ARENCIBIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, JOSE AYALA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE GUARANTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-15387 (11th Cir.). The Plaintiff attempted to qualify the Defendant as a "debt collector" under the second definition of the FDCPA, which refers to any person who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. In the case, the Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not a "debt collector" because, at the time of collection, it was collecting on debts it owned and not collecting a debt owed or due another. The Eleventh Circuit finds that the case is bound to observe the ruling in the case, Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2015) -- which settled the dispute in Mortgage Guaranty's favor -- under the prior panel precedent rule. The Court went on to affirm the dismissal of Davidson's complaint because it made no factual allegations from which the Court could plausibly infer that the defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due to someone other than the defendant. The Eleventh Circuit then ruled that there is no evidence that the Defendant regularly collected or attempted to collect on debts for others. Accordingly, the Defendant does not qualify as a "debt collector" under the second definition of that term in the FDCPA. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/ASVOPz from Leagle.com. Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Christopher Dale Donovan -- cdonovan@ralaw.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. David W. Fineman -- SDFineman@finemanlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Carmen Dellutri -- cdellutri@dellutrilawgroup.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Brian Melendez -- bmelendez@dykema.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Benjamin W. Raslavich -- ben@raslavichlaw.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. NATURE COAST: Torres Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned ROXANE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. NATURE COAST HOME CARE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01970- JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): "all current and former home health aides employed by Nature Coast Home Care LLC at any time after July 5, 2013 who were: (1) at any time not paid the FLSA's overtime premium for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek and (2) not exempt from the FLSA's coverage". The Plaintiff further asks the Court to: 1. require Nature Coast to produce, within ten days of the Court's ruling on this motion: the full name, job title, last known address, last known e-mail address, and dates of employment, of each current or former employee whose job title was "home health aide" or any similar title, or whose duties included those described by Torres and Castro; and 2. approve and authorize notice of this action to be sent to each class member, in the form proposed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendant's counsel on September 16 regarding the motion and asked for consent to class certification. No response was received. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rwTVP2Ih The Plaintiff is represented by: William F. Cash III, Esq. Brandon L. Bogle, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435 7059 E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com bbogle@levinlaw.com - and - David H. Grounds, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436 1800 E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com NAVY FEDERAL: Court Rules Class Certification in "Munday" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled RONALD MUNDAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-01629-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order: (1) preliminary certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (2) preliminarily approving the class action settlement; (3) appointing Ronald Munday as Class Representative and names Sergei Lemberg and Stephen Taylor as Class Counsel; (4) approving A.B. Data as Class Administrator; and (5) approving the form and method of settlement notice, subject to the changes identified above. The Settlement Class is defined as: "owners of the 90,726 unique cellular telephone numbers called by Navy Federal with an [automatic telephone dialing system] during the class period which Navy Federal coded as a wrong number call." No portion of the settlement fund will revert back to Navy Federal. The settlement fund, less certain administrative costs, attorney's fees, and incentive payments, will be distributed pro rata to each Settlement Class member who submits a valid claim form. However, no individual claimant will receive in excess of $1,500. According to Class Counsel, assuming a 5% claim rate, each claimant will recover approximately $430, or very close to the $500 per violation statutory recovery sought under the Complaint (Statutory damages of $500.00 for each and every call in violation of the TCPA). The Court ordered the parties to file a revised version of the full notice within 10 days of the entry of the Order. The Court sets a fairness hearing for Friday, February 17, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Settlement Class members. Munday shall file his motion for final approval no later than Friday, February 3, 2017. Class Counsel and the Class Representative shall file a supplemental brief, if any, in support of their application for fees, costs, and incentive payments no later than January 4, 2017. The Court reserves the right to continue the date of the fairness hearing without further notice to class members. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=REnZ8tjm NEWELL BRANDS: Hirsch Withdraws Motion to Approve Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Newell Brands Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, that Vincent A. Hirsch has filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E. Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross, Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros L'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16- CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden shareholders against the individually named director defendants, who are directors of Jarden. Newell Brands and its subsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II are also named as defendants. The complaint alleges claims under Sec. 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"); SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants; and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual director defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of Newell Brands and Jarden concerning the proposed merger contemplated by the merger agreement omitted certain information. In March 2016, the parties entered into a settlement term sheet and, in July 2016, the parties entered into a fully-executed Stipulation of Settlement. On July 19, 2016, the plaintiff filed, among other things, an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. On or about August 26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the foregoing motion. The Newell Brands' defendants and Jarden directors intend to vigorously defend their interests in the case. NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Action Lawsuit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- Newell Brands Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, that the class action lawsuit by Jessica Paree remains stayed. A putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E. Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against the individually named director defendants, all of whom are directors of Jarden. Newell Brands and two of its subsidiaries are also named as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jarden stockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and the process undertaken by the director defendants in connection with the acquisition of Jarden by Newell Brands, and that Newell Brands and two of its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants have (i) solicited stockholder action pursuant to a materially false and misleading joint proxy statement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all material information concerning the unfair sales process that resulted in the merger and (iii) materially omitted certain information related to the financial analyses performed by Jarden's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the acquisition of Jarden is consummated, an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and a direction from the court that Jarden's individual board members account for all damages allegedly suffered as a result of their alleged wrongdoing. On March 28, 2016, the parties filed an Agreed Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, seeking a stay of the litigation, pending the outcome of the Hirsch v. Lillie action. The court entered an order staying the proceedings on March 31, 2016. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NIMBLE STORAGE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Nimble Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the Nimble Storage, Inc. Securities Litigation remains pending. On December 17, 2015, a purported securities class action entitled Vikramkumar v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. A second purported securities class action entitled Guardino v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on December 23, 2015, and a third purported class action entitled Madhani v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on February 5, 2016, also in the Northern District of California against the same parties. The complaints in the three actions allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. On March 28, 2016, the Court ordered that the three actions be consolidated under the caption In re Nimble Storage, Inc. Securities Litigation, or In re Nimble Sec. Lit. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the In re Nimble Sec. Lit. matter on June 10, 2016. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 25, 2016. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NORDIC NATURALS: Dismissal of Fish Oil Class Action Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has rejected an attempt by a lawyer it called a "serial class action litigant" to defeat federal jurisdiction in a class action suit against a company selling fish oil capsules. The appeals court affirmed dismissal of a suit by Englewood lawyer Harold Hoffman, who has brought nearly 100 consumer fraud actions as a pro se litigant in the past four years. The court sanctioned Mr. Hoffman for filing a frivolous appeal, and asked the defendant to submit an accounting of its costs and expenses for the appeal. Judge Julio Fuentes of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said Mr. Hoffman "is an attorney who as made a habit of filing class actions in which he serves as both the sole class representative and the sole class counsel." The suit alleges that Nordic Naturals Inc. makes unsupported claims about health benefits of its Ultimate Omega supplements. Hoffman claimed on appeal that the U.S. district court judge who dismissed his suit lacked subject matter jurisdiction. But the appeals court said the judge below did not need to establish jurisdiction because she was dismissing the case as procedurally barred, rather than on the merits. Before filing the suit in Hoffman v. Nordic Naturals, Mr. Hoffman filed a nearly identical putative class suit in New Jersey state court against the same defendant, based on the same facts. The defendant removed that suit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. Mr. Hoffman was given 30 days to amend his complaint. But instead he filed a second complaint in state court, with a smaller putative class. "The purpose of this change was, it seems, to reduce the amount recoverable and therefore defeat federal jurisdiction," Judge Fuentes wrote. Judge Fuentes was joined by Judges Cheryl Ann Krause and Jane Roth. Nordic removed the second suit to federal court and moved to dismiss it under the entire controversy doctrine. U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton for the District of New Jersey granted the motion, calling Hoffman's narrowing of the putative class a "poorly disguised attempt" to dodge CAFA jurisdiction. On appeal, Mr. Hoffman argued that Judge Wigenton lacked jurisdiction under the CAFA to dismiss the case. But the appeals panel said a court is not required to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction before dismissing a case on non-merits grounds. Because it dismissed the case on claim preclusion grounds, the district court "was therefore permitted to bypass the jurisdictional inquiry in favor of a non-merits dismissal," Judge Fuentes wrote. Mr. Hoffman said the requirement that jurisdiction be established before a judge can take action has been a primary rule of the federal system but "this opinion indicates that the court can make a conclusive determination without establishing jurisdiction." Mr. Hoffman also cited a Third Circuit blog by attorney Matthew Stiegler that said the 2007 Supreme Court case the panel relied on in the Nordic Naturals decision, Sinochem International v. Malaysia International Shipping was a "night and day different" from the present case and was "just about forum selection and efficiency, not about courts nuking cases they don't have the power to hear." McDonald said the "sad history of this litigation is one of reckless, unsupported allegations and extraordinary abuse of process, and we are pleased that [the] district court has twice recognized this and the Third Circuit has agreed by granting Nordic Natural's motion for sanctions on appeal." NRA GROUP: Faces "Isaac" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group, LLC. The case is titled Aldean Isaac and Julissa Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NRA Group, LLC, doing business as National Recovery Agency, and Steven C. Kusic, Case No. 2:16-cv-05210-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2016). The assigned Judge is Joseph F. Bianco. NRA is an accounts receivable management company providing debt collection service, skip tracing and credit bureau reporting. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 706 5055 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com NRG RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Dobkin" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC. The case is captioned Michael Dobkin and Erica Gennarini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-mc-00027- SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Sheri Polster Chappell. NRG provides solar systems on lease for homeowners. It offers its services through dealers in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Stewart R. Pollock, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654-5125 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: erapp@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com spollock@edelson.com - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235 Hollywood, FL 33019-2930 Telephone: (954) 589 0588 Facsimile: (954) 337 0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC 201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333 9427 Facsimile: (888) 498 9827 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com OCEAN POWER: Nov. 14 Final Hearing on $3-Mil. Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a Court has scheduled a hearing for November 14, 2016 to determine, among other things, whether to grant final approval of a class action settlement. The Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy are defendants in consolidated securities class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG). The consolidated actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG (filed June 13, 2014); Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815 (filed June 13, 2014); Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015 (filed June 23, 2014); and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592 (filed July 22, 2014). On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff. On October 9, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended class action complaint which alleges claims for violations of sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to the Company's technology and a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd. (VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for the development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). The third amended class action complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the motion on December 7, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on December 21, 2015. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion. On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Class Settlement ("Stipulation") in which they agreed to a settlement of the consolidated securities class action lawsuits, subject to Court approval. The Stipulation provides, among other things, for a settlement payment by or on behalf of the Company of $3,000,000 in cash, of which the Company was to pay $500,000 and the Company's insurer will pay $2,500,000, and the issuance by the Company of 380,000 shares (valued at $596,000 on the date the Stipulation was signed by the parties) of its Common Stock to the class members. In connection with the settlement, the parties have agreed to execute mutually agreeable releases. On June 7, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement. The Court has scheduled a hearing for November 14, 2016 to determine, among other things, whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The amounts agreed in the Stipulation agreement, including the amount to be contributed by our insurance carrier, have been reflected in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of July 31, 2016 and April 30, 2016. In July 2016, the Company paid the $500,000 portion of the settlement and the remaining balance of $2,500,000 was paid by the Company's insurer in August 2016. OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Judge Certifies Shareholders' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC said a federal judge ignored his own deadline by certifying a class-action lawsuit tied to a bribery probe on Sept. 14 without giving the largest publicly traded U.S. hedge fund company a chance to object. U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken in Manhattan said Och-Ziff shareholders from February 2012 to August 2014 can sue as a group over allegations that the company misled them about U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probes into its investments in Africa. The judge called the class certification bid "unopposed" because the defendants Och-Ziff, Chief Executive Daniel Och and Chief Financial Officer Joel Frank had not responded. But less than two hours later, lawyers for the defendants told Judge Oetken in a letter that he ruled too quickly, having given them until Oct. 11 to respond, in accordance with a scheduling order he issued in May. The lawyers said Och-Ziff, Och and Mr. Frank intend to oppose class certification, and urged Judge Oetken to vacate his order. Judge Oetken's chambers declined to comment. Jeremy Lieberman, a lawyer for the Och-Ziff shareholders, also declined to comment. Even if he vacated the order, Judge Oetken signaled he might look favorably on class certification, which could lead to higher recoveries at lower cost than if plaintiffs sued individually. He said claims such as those made by the plaintiffs' "are generally suited to class action litigation," and that the lawsuit "satisfies all the requirements for class certification." U.S. authorities have been investigating whether Och-Ziff bribed Libyan officials to win business from that country's sovereign wealth fund, and whether Och-Ziff loans funded illegal payments to the government in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The New York-based company has earmarked $414 million for a possible settlement with the U.S. government relating to the investigation. The case is Menaldi v Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-03251. OFFICE DEPOT: Judge Certifies Assistant Store Managers' OT Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Locks Law Firm on Sept. 15 disclosed that a federal judge granted final certification to a collective action by assistant store managers seeking claims for unpaid overtime wages they say are due from their employer Office Depot. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Galpern, Andrew Bell and Neel Bhuta of Locks Law Firm, Cherry Hill, NJ; as well as attorneys from Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP; Berger & Montague, P.C., and Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP. Judge William Martini ruled on the case, Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., on Tuesday, Sept. 13, in the United States Court for the District of New Jersey. Judge Martini's opinion will allow the plaintiffs' claims to continue as a group, both as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and a Rule 23 class action in Colorado, Maryland and Washington. Plaintiffs in the case, who number more than 300, worked as assistant store managers for Office Depot during a period ranging from early 2000 to July 2013. Their claims arise out of an overtime pay policy that Office Depot had in place from late 2005 to 2012. While assistant store managers were entitled to overtime pay, Office Depot only paid overtime, incorrectly, pursuant to the company's "fluctuating workweek" plan. The plaintiffs alleged that Office Depot's method for paying overtime violated state and federal wage and hour laws. "The fact that the court granted certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the state law claims assures that the aggrieved assistant store managers will have the opportunity to present the court with their substantive claims for unpaid overtime wages," said Michael Galpern, a partner in the Cherry Hill, NJ, office of Locks Law Firm. "It's unconscionable that big corporations and other major employers are willing to take advantage of their employees, many of whom are struggling every day just to make ends meet," said Mr. Galpern. Mr. Galpern said he and the other lawyers at the Locks Law Firm are firmly dedicated to protecting the rights of workers who seek to recover unpaid wages to which they are entitled. With offices in Cherry Hill and Roseland, NJ; Philadelphia and New York City, the Locks Law Firm is known for protecting the rights of consumers throughout the country as well as individuals and families who have suffered injuries or death as a result of the recklessness or negligence of another party. For additional information, contact Thomas Derr of Simon PR, (215) 545-4715, ext. 29, or cell: (215) 620-7723. OLA: Class Action Lawsuit Filed vs. Two Cab Aggregators in India ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shreeja Sen, writing for Livemint, reports that two non-government organizations and two individuals filed a class action suit before the national consumer forum against app-based taxi aggregators Ola and Uber. The complainants have asked for a refund of INR9,239 crore from the two companies for the surge-prices charged by them. The development was first reported by legal news website Bar and Bench on Sept. 20. The case against the two cab aggregators was filed on September 19, according to information available on the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) website. The complaint has been filed by NGOs Nyayabhoomi and Pariwar Unity Road Safety Life Safety and Delhi-based individuals Anu Jain and Manisha Pandey. It is scheduled to be heard on 5 October. The two cab companies, that now may likely have to counter this fresh salvo, have faced litigation for charging higher prices based on demand -- also called surge pricing. The situation is not unlike Nestle India's Maggi, which was also taken to the NCDRC by the union government asking for a compensation of INR640 crore, even as it faced bans on sales in several states. India now also has the option of class action suits in its company laws, a provision notified earlier this year. The Consumer Protection Act permits individual consumers to file complaints on behalf of or for the benefit of others who have similar interests or are affected by the same wrong. There haven't been too many judicial precedents where such class actions have been brought in the past, says Ashish Bhan, counsel at Trilegal, a law firm. "Such collective action enhances the accountability and ensures that the consumers are protected at all times," he said. "Class action is the need of the hour given that a larger consumer base is affected by these acts. More so, in the new age of e-commerce, one individual complaint of a faulty product or service could be treated as that of a larger group of people, or 'class', in similar circumstances." He also added that the government introduced the Consumer Protection Bill, 2015 to strengthen the laws for better protection of the consumers with the changing trends. So are class action suits to protect consumer interests the new norm? OOMA INC: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the securities litigation remains pending. The Company said, "On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959) against Ooma, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of our Initial Public Offering on July 17, 2015 (the "IPO"). Since that time two additional purported class actions making substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were filed, and on May 18, 2016 all three complaints were combined into a "consolidated complaint" filed in the same court (the "Securities Litigation"). The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common stock in our IPO in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus we filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The consolidated complaint alleges that Ooma and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") by issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem proper." "On July 1, 2016 Ooma filed its answer to the complaint, and on August 26, 2016 Ooma filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings." "Ooma believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and we are vigorously defending against the Securities Litigation and will continue to do so. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that we will obtain a favorable final outcome or that we will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of our defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on our current knowledge, we have determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Securities Litigation is not reasonably estimable." PHH CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Reinsurance Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- RESPA reports that as it awaits the results from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for PHH Corp. v. CFPB, financial services provider PHH Corp. has called on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to dismiss a class-action lawsuit alleging kickback schemes through its reinsurance agreements. Counsel for PHH drew on the recent Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, its interpretation of RESPA Section 8 and the filed rate doctrine to support its argument for dismissal. Find out how the industry giant articulated its case. PHILIP MORRIS: Arkansas Smokers to Get $45 Million from Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Dustin Hodges, writing for KY3, reports that Arkansas is the first state to successfully settle a class action lawsuit against Philip Morris; now some smokers could get their hands on some of the $45 million settlement. Glenda Wills started smoking back in the 1980's; before the dangers of cigarettes were fully understood. "When I was 16 you could go to the store, you were never I-D'd," says Wills. In her nearly three decades of smoking Wills has seen a lot of changes in the way cigarettes are marketed and sold. "I've seeen it grow tremendously, there's like ten different Marlboro's," says Wills. "I like the Marlborou Black's 100, special blend; it says its lower in tar, that's what the advertisements say." This isn't the first time Marlboro has made a cigarette it said was healthier than its originals. Philip Morris's marketing of Marlboro lights and ultra-lights led to a class action lawsuit against the company in 2003. "Phillip Morris had marketed Marlboro lights as a safer, healthier and less addictive cigarette; it was an alternative for people to quit smoking and gave them an opportunity to quit because of the lower nicotine and healthier characteristics and all of that was false," says Thomas Thrash, the attorney who brought the settlement against Philip Morris. Phillip Morris settled that lawsuit this summer for $45 million; which could mean a payday for smokers who purchased Marlboro lights or ultra-lights in the Natural State. "The settlement provides for payment of 10 cents per pack from 1971 through 1998 and from 1998 to 2003 it's 25 cents a pack; and from 2003 to 2010 its 10 cents a pack," says Thrash. Which, if you're still a smoker; could buy you some products which can help you quit. If you live in Missouri but purchased those types of cigarettes in Arkansas you are still eligible for a settlement. Class members need to file a proof of claim by December 1. To submit a claim form, open the link to the right of the page. PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Porter" Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Porter et al, the Plaintiff(s), v. Pipefitters Association Local Union 597, the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:12-cv-09844 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an opinion and order granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and reserving ruling on certification request. The Court certifies a class of: "all African American persons who were members of Local 597 at any time from November 14, 2003 to the present date". The Court appoints Duane Porter, Kenneth Black, Ronald Bouie, Ricky Brown, Samuel Clark, Frank Craddieth, Donald Gayles, and Steve Wilson as class representatives of the class. The Court appoints Adam Goodman, Wesley Johnson, Jamie S. Franklin, and Randall D. Schmidt as class counsel. Plaintiffs are African American journeyman pipefitters who belonged to Local 597. They claim that they and other African American pipefitters worked comparatively fewer hours than their non-African American counterparts due to Local 597's inequitable job assignment systems. They filed this suit against Local 597, alleging intentional and disparate impact discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, and breach of Local 597's duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(b), for failing to represent the interests of all its members. The Court finds Plaintiffs have met the requirements for certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class but reserves ruling on the request for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class pending clarification of the named Plaintiffs' current union membership status or the addition of a current union member as a class representative. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dPWNxfI0 A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at no charge at https://is.gd/TYlTMC from Leagle.com. PJ IOWA: Court Rules Class Certification in "Tegtmeier" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned BRANDON TEGTMEIER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PJ Iowa, L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00110-JEG-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. James E. Grirtzner entered an order that: 1. Tegtmeier's Motion for conditional collective action certification is granted consistent with the provisions of this Order; 2. notice of pendency of this action shall be sent to all individuals who worked for PJ Iowa as a delivery driver between October 13, 2012, and the present; 3. the Notice and Consent Form, as set forth in exhibits to the motion are approved, with the exception of the changes ordered above; 4. PJ Iowa shall have until 14 days following this Order to provide Plaintiff's counsel the names, last known addresses, dates of employment, and the location and store number of the store at which each potential collective action member works or worked; 5. Plaintiff's counsel shall have 10 days from receipt of the information listed above to circulate the Notice and Consent Form via U.S. Mail; 6. Putative opt-in plaintiffs shall have 60 days from the circulation of the Notice and Consent Form in which to opt in to this action; and 7. the statute of limitations will be equitably tolled for potential opt-in plaintiffs from March 23, 2016, until the 60-day notice period begins to run. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Qrtb8vjj PNI DIGITAL: "T.A.N." Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Ga. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled T.A.N., as individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. PNI Digital Media, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 16-00906-063, was removed from the Superior Court of Glynn County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Brunswick). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv- 00132-LGW-RSB to the proceeding. The assigned Chief Judge is Hon. Lisa G. Wood. PNI Digital is an Internet infrastructure company providing web based applications for the photography industry. The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Kevin Daniel Bradberry, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1170 chtree Street, NE, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30309-7676 Telephone: (404) 256 8783 Facsimile: (404) 459 5734 E-mail: kbradberry@bakerlaw.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Class Action Filed for Misleading Shareholders ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announced on September 20, 2016, that a class action complaint was filed against Polaris Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Polaris securities between January 26, 2016 and September 11, 2016, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Polaris's officers and directors. Polaris, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and on- road vehicles in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and Mexico. Polaris markets its products under the RANGER, RZR, RANGER Crew, and Polaris RUSH brand names, among others. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/polaris-industries- inc Polaris Accused of Downplaying the Effects of Its Recalls According to the complaint, on July 23, 2015, Polaris issued a recall for one of the company's RZR vehicles, followed by three more recalls in October 2015, December 2015, and April 2016, affecting more than 160,000 RZR vehicles of various model years. Nevertheless, Polaris issued a series of press releases and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission touting positive financial and operating results and predicting solid guidance. For example, on January 26, 2016, and again on April 21, 2016, Polaris reported full-year guidance in the range of $6.20 to $6.80 per diluted share. Then, on April 19, 2016, Polaris announced that it was again voluntarily recalling certain RZR off- road vehicles due to reports of thermal-related incidents, and subsequently only slightly lowered and narrowed its guidance range to $6.00 to $6.30 per diluted share on July 20, 2016. The complaint alleges that Polaris officials failed to disclose that: (i) the company was unable to sufficiently validate the initially identified repair for certain of its recalled RZR vehicles; (ii) as a result, the company would need to implement a more complex and expensive repair solution; (iii) the financial impact of RZR vehicle recalls was therefore greater than the company had disclosed to investors; and (iv) consequently, the company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance. On September 12, 2016, Polaris issued a press release announcing that as a result of "RZR thermal-related issues," the company was drastically lowering its earnings guidance for the full year 2016 to the range of $3.30 to $3.80 per diluted share, $2.50 to $2.70 per diluted share lower than previously expected. On this news, Polaris stock fell $4.05 per share, or approximately 5%, to close at $76.79 per share on September 12, 2016. Polaris Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN: Evanston Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled EVANSTON NORTHSHORE HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN, INC. and WESLEY E. WIEDENBECK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00422 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class: "all persons who were sent one or more facsimiles in December 2006 advertising the commercial availability of goods or services at PacFabDirect.com, HaywardPartsDirect.com or AquaFloDirect.com." Excluded from the Class is any Judge assigned to this action, and his or her family. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint itself as class representative, and to appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uXdFVHWI The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Jonathan B. Piper, Esq. Julia L. Titolo, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 Facsimile: (312) 658 5555 POSHMARK INC: Faces "Reichman" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Poshmark, Inc. The case is styled Christopher J. Reichman, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. Poshmark, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02359-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Dana M. Sabraw. Poshmark operates a platform where women come together to buy and sell clothing and accessories from each other's closets. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Beavans, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. BEAVANS 4542 Ruffner St., Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92111 Telephone: (619) 234 7848 Facsimile: (619) 234 7849 E-mail: dbeavans@theSDlawyers.com PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Tamayo" Suit in Middle District of Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Publix Super Markets, Inc. The case is captioned Eric Tamayo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01646-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Gregory A. Presnell. Publix Super Markets, commonly known as Publix, is an employee- owned, American supermarket chain based in Lakeland, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC 1625 North Commerce Parkway Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515 0123 Facsimile: (954) 515 0124 E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com PULTE HOME: Court Narrows Claims in "Gazzara" Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHAUN PARKER GAZZARA, ANA PAULA GAZZARA, HARRY JAMES WHITMAN and MARCIA FAYE WHITMAN, Plaintiffs, v. PULTE HOME CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-657-Orl-31TBS (M.D. Fla.), District Judge Gregory A. Presnell granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay. Count I and Count III are dismissed with prejudice. Count II is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class comprised of all individuals, corporations, associations, trusts or other entities that currently own homes constructed by Pulte in Florida between May 1, 2006 and April 15, 2016 with a Drainage Plane Exterior Stucco Wall System over Wood Frame and Wood Sheathing which Pulte wrongfully constructed in violation of the Florida Building Code resulting in the stucco siding failing. The Plaintiffs assert these claims: Count I - Negligence Count II - Violations of Florida Building Code Count III - Intentional Construction of Defective Stucco Siding The Court held that it would be premature to assess the class action issues where the amended complaint has been dismissed for its conclusory allegations. The Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant's negligence was barred by the economic loss rule and was dismissed with prejudice, while the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Building Code was dismissed without prejudice due to the Plaintiffs' lack of explanation as to how the stucco siding violated the Code or how it failed. The Court also dismissed the allegation of the Plaintiffs, with prejudice, that the Defendant intentionally constructed the defective stucco siding. The Court noted that should the Plaintiffs wish to file an amended pleading, they must do so on or before September 23, 2016. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 8, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/RjDM4U from Leagle.com. Shaun Parker Gazzara, Plaintiff, represented by David Fuller Tegeler, Michael C. Sasso, PA. Shaun Parker Gazzara, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon H. Harris, Harris Harris Bauerle Ziegler Lopez, John Wesley Frost, II, Frost, Van den Boom, PA, Lydia Sturgis Zbrzeznj -- lzbrzeznj@fvdblaw.com -- Frost, Van den Boom, PA, Michael Adam Sasso, Michael C. Sasso, PA & Michael Cornelius Sasso, Michael C. Sasso, PA. QUEENSLAND: 300 Aboriginal People Join Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------ Kerry Smith, writing for greenleft, reports that about 300 Aboriginal people have joined a class action filed in the Federal Court on September 12 to recover wages they say were stolen by the Queensland government more than half a century ago. The claim is for unpaid wages held in government trust accounts under Queensland's Aboriginal Protection and Preservation Act 1939, which allowed the government to control the earnings of Aboriginal people until 1972. Much of the money was lost or stolen. Cairns solicitor John Bottoms, who is representing the claimants, said: "It's an action for breach of trust. "The Queensland government held itself up via its legislation as the protector of Aboriginals, as holding the funds in trust to look after it for them [because] it was said that they couldn't manage on their own. "We've already got 300 claimants. We're intending to take the matter to court and let the court decide what they're entitled to." Jan Saddler, a partner with Shine Lawyers who is assisting with the class action, said the government's conduct around its so- called welfare fund "left thousands of Indigenous people effectively working as slaves because they never received their wages". "It's a story told over and over again about Indigenous Australians who were denied the opportunity to get a leg up in society because of a very harsh and unfair world that they lived in. It's quite heartbreaking." Ms. Saddler said she was looking into possible future claims in NSW, WA and the NT, where similar legislation to Queensland's had existed from the 1890s. Ms. Saddler said there were "very good records" to back the claims in Queensland government archives, including of "various trust accounts that were held, the retention of particular Aboriginal people's wages, records of particular communities that may have been affected or particular employers who may have been part of this program." The Queensland government set up a reparations scheme in 2002 that paid claimants, including the lead claimant, 77-year-old Hans Pearson, between $2000 and $4000 in return for waiving their legal rights. But Mr. Bottoms argues that Mr. Pearson was conned into signing up. "We don't think that the discharge and release that he was forced to sign is valid or binding," he said. "We think that the way it was imposed was unconscionable. He was never told what he was actually owed, he was just simply told if he didn't sign this, he'd get nothing." Mr. Pearson became a drover in far north Queensland at the age of 15. Aboriginal station workers at the time were paid two-thirds of a white worker's wage. During his first decade of work, Pearson earned about GBP14 a week: GBP6 was held by the government and œ8 given to him as "pocket money". He believes he earned up to GBP7000 during the 1950s and '60s and was planning on buying a house in North Queensland for his young family. But, when he went to collect his money, he received a tiny fraction of that amount. "When the police called me up to the police station, me and the wife went up and he had a cheque waiting for me for GBP28 pounds," Mr. Pearson said. "I said: 'Is this all I'm getting?' and he said: 'Well, that's all you have after 10 years of working'." Historian Dr. Ros Kidd, a consultant to the class action, said there was substantial documentary evidence to support the claim. "There were internal inquiries, there were investigations and there were audit reports every year and I've got every one of them from 1940 to 1990. Time after time they say this money is going missing and you need for people to see a record of their accounts to stop this type of fraud," she said. Kidd estimated the actual amount owed to Aboriginal workers was in the region of $500 million. Last year the Queensland government set up the Stolen Wages Reparations Taskforce led by Mick Gooda. It recommended in its report Reconciling Past Injustice that the $21 million made available by the government to be distributed to Aboriginal claimants be capped at $9200 for each individual. The Queensland government has, to date, paid out $5.8 million to more than 3000 claimants. Mr. Pearson said he hoped the legal action would result in his dream of being able to buy a house, but he expects a fight from the Queensland government. "We will just keep fighting, they've got the money to fight us, but I hope that justice will be done, that they'll be compassionate with us and just give us what they owe us," he said. QUORUM HEALTH: Investors File Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed against Quorum Health Corporation (NYSE: QHC) and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Quorum securities between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016. On August 10, Quorum disclosed in a press release and SEC filings that it experienced a substantial net loss, as well as an operating loss, for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, its first quarter as an independently traded public company. These losses were linked to over $250 million in impairment charges the Company took in the quarter, including hundreds of millions of dollars in goodwill adjustments. These adjustments represented more than half of Quorum's value, as represented by its market cap as of August 9, 2016. In response to the Company reporting the sizeable loss, Quorum's stock price fell nearly 50%, representing approximately $150 million in lost investor value. The lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Quorum's hospitals were underperforming at the time it was spun off from Community Health Systems, Inc. in April 2016; and that the company failed to adequately inform investors of issues affecting its true value, causing them to overpay for its securities. If you purchased Quorum securities, you have until November 8, 2016 to file a motion to serve as lead plaintiff. As a member of the class, you may seek to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an absent class member. If have questions about the litigation, becoming a lead plaintiff or possess information relevant to this case, please contact attorney Steven Harte at (617) 398-5600, via email at Steven@blockesq.com, or visit www.blockesq.com/quorum. Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with relevant information is assured. Block & Leviton represents investors affected by violations of securities laws as well as whistleblowing individuals. The firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases for over 70 years, have recovered billions of dollars for investors and represent some of the nation's largest institutional investors. R&A OYSTERS: Settlement in "Cordova" Case Preliminarily Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MIGUEL ANGEL FUENTES CORDOVA, et al., etc., Plaintiffs, v. R & A OYSTERS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-0462-WS-M (S.D. Ala.), Chief District Judge William H. Steele granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement and notice to class members. The settlement agreement provides a pot of $86,500.00, with $42,654.86 allocated to settle the class members' contract claims and the balance allocated to settle the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) retaliation claims of seven individuals. Three class members, who separately settled with the defendants in December 2015 for $500 each, will receive the amount to which they then agreed. The remaining 48 class members will split the remaining $41,654.86. Each such class member will receive approximately half the full remaining value of his or her contract claim. Pursuant to the agreement, class counsel is to complete mailing of the class notice and claim form to all class members on or before September 26, 2016. Class counsel is to file and serve a notice confirming accomplishment of the task on or before September 27, 2016 and shall begin contacting class members by the other means identified in the order no later than October 10, 2016. To be timely, objections and exclusion requests must be mailed to the Court and postmarked no later than November 25, 2016. To be timely, claim forms must be mailed to class counsel and postmarked no later than November 25, 2016 or telefaxed or e-mailed to class counsel and received no later than November 25, 2016. The deadline may be extended by the Court as to any class member who, according to class counsel's November 7, 2016 report, has not received the class notice and claim form. A hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement and whether final approval will be held on December 6, 2016. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/rq9B44 from Leagle.com. Miguel Angel Fuentes Cordova, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Werner, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice. Miguel Angel Fuentes Cordova, Plaintiff, represented by Eunice Cho, pro hac vice, James Melvin Knoepp, pro hac vice, Meredith Blake Stewart, pro hac vice & Samuel Jacob Brooke, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. R&A Oysters, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Rick Andrew LaTrace, Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon & Harris, L.L.C., Alan C. Christian -- acc@johnstoneadams.com -- Johnstone Adams, LLC, Celia J. Collins -- cjc@johnstoneadams.com -- Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon & Harris & Spencer Harrison Larche. RELIABLE STAFFING: "Hawkins" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. RELIABLE STAFFING CORPORATION, a Texas corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC634455 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages and amount of all unpaid wages pursuant to the Labor Code. The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendants enjoyed from their failure to pay all wages to employees and their failure to pay wages by instruments payable on demand, without discount. According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to compensate their non-exempt California employees placed to work at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) with all wages earned during the course of employment including but not limited to, all living wages and overtime wages, failing to provide them with accurately itemized wage statements, failing to compensate them with all premium wages for missed, denied and unauthorized meal periods, and failing to pay them all wages due and owing upon separation of employment. Reliable Staffing is a fully blended company and has recruiting specialists in office, administrative, engineering, sales, marketing, accounting, finance, information technology, and skilled labor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq. Daniel F. Gaines, Esq. Alex P. Katofsky, Esq. Sepideh Ardestani, Esq. GAINES & GAINES, APLC 27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101 Calabasas, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 703 8985 Facsimile: (818) 703 8984 E-mail: ken@gaineslawfinn.com daniel@gaineslawfirm.com alex@gaineslawfirm.com sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com REWALK ROBOTICS: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Common Stock Purchases --------------------------------------------------------------- JACKIE888, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REWALK ROBOTICS LTD., LARRY JASINSKI, AMI KRAFT, AMIT GOFFER, JEFF DYKAN, HADAR RON, ASAF SHINA, WAYNE B. WEISMAN, YASUSI-II ICHIKI, ARYEH DAN, GLENN MUIR, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., JEFFERIES LLC, and CANACCORD GENUITY INC., the Defendants, Case No. 16CIV01454 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 20, 2016), seeks to recover damages against the Defendants in connection with the purchases of ReWalk common stock in violation of the Securities Act. On July 10, 2014, ReWalk filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) its registration statement on Form F-1, which was followed by several amendments the last of which was filed with the SEC on August 26, 2014, which became effective on September 11, 2014, and which later issued to the public in connection with the IPO (the Registration Statement). On September 15, 2014, the Company filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO (Prospectus), dated September 1, 2014, which forms part of the Registration Statement. However, the Company's Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and/or was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that despite the regulatory requirements to comply with "special controls" and provide the FDA with a postmarket surveillance study of the ReWalk product, the Company was woefully unprepared and/or unable to do so. Plaintiff and the class who purchased the Company's IPO stock have been damaged by the falsity of the Registration Statement in an amount to be determined at trial. ReWalk is a medical device company that designs, develops and markets wearable robotic exoskeletons for individuals with spinal cord injury. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glaney, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRON GAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310)201 9150 Facsimile: (310)201 9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Joseph Gentile, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 14 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY Telephone: (516) 699-8890 - and - Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. VIANALE & VIANALE LLP 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33 ROCKY MOUNTAIN: "McClure" Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------- Joseph McClure, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rocky Mountain Casing Crews, Inc. & Gerald Lapp, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00322 (D.N.D., September 7, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, prejudgment interest and penalties, all costs incurred prosecuting this claim and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rocky Mountain Casing Crews, Inc. is a Wyoming Corporation that operates in Williston, North Dakota. It provides oilfield casing services in oilfields throughout the Williston Basin where McLure worked as a casing employee. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Tel: (214) 706-0834 Fax: (469) 339-0204 - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Garver" Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROGER GARVER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RURAL/METRO CORPORATION, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv- 03129-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Court granted a joint motion for class certification and certified a class of consisting of: "all current and former employees of Defendants who worked as Security Officers at the Port Columbus Airport, as identified on documents produced by Defendants, Garver 00388 - 00405." The lawsuit arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for Defendants' alleged failure to properly compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees for all hours worked. The Defendants have denied all liability relating thereto. The Defendants do not oppose certification of a Class action of Plaintiffs' Ohio claims, and certification of a collective action for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, relating only to Security Officers who worked or are working at the Port Columbus Airport for either Defendant since December 31, 2012. The Parties further stipulate, for purposes of this litigation only and for no other purposes whatsoever, that the Defendants Rural/Metro Corporation and Rural Metro Fire Department, Inc. are joint employers of the Security Officers who have worked or are working at the Port Columbus Airport for either Defendant since on or after December 31, 2012. The Defendants stipulate that they are joint employers of these security officers solely for the dates listed and solely for purposes of existing claims made pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wages Standards Act, and the Ohio Revised Code. The time period governed by the presumptive Class includes individuals employed by Defendants from December 31, 2012 to the present. The class shall not include Alan Ward, Thomas Rogers, Carl Morrow, Darby Smith, Timothy Larson, or Ben Wilson, or any other Corporal or supervisor. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gEevPxHa The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kimble, Esq. Robert J. Beggs, Esq. BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, Ohio 43220 Telephone: (614) 457 7800 E-mail: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com - and - Andrew Kimble, Esq. KIMBLE LAW, LLC 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 983 0361 E-mail: andrew@kimblelawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: John Barr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. BARR, P.C. 4105 Stuart Ave Richmond, VA 23221 Telephone: 804-269-5078 E-mail: John.barr@jmblawoffice.com - and - Gretchen M. Treherne, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 70 Birch Alley, Suite 240 Dayton, OH 45440 Telephone: (937) 306 6397 E-mail: Gretchen.treherne@jacksonlewis.com * * * The Hon. Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.'s order provides that, by October 15, 2016, the Defendants have agreed to provide Plaintiff's counsel with contact information for each member of the presumptive class as well as documents and information regarding pay rates, wages paid, and hours worked for each presumptive class member. Within 7 days after the issuance of the order, the Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed Court-authorized notice, accompanied by a supporting memorandum and points of authority. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qFtRLNnd SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Faces Gorss Motels Suit in Middle Dist. of Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Safemark Systems, LP. The case is titled Gorss Motels, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Safemark Systems, LP, and John Does 1-5 the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01638-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Gregory A. Presnell. Safemark Systems provides customer service. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com SANTA FE, N.M.: Class Suit Filed Against Sheriff and Warden ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Santa Fe County, its sheriff and warden jail pretrial and pre-indictment detainees far longer than the 15 days permitted by state law, a class action claims in Albuquerque Federal Court. SAPUTO DAIRY: "Brewer" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Brandy Brewer, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and Saputo Cheese USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. VCU266443, was removed from the Tulare County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01373-DAD-EPG to the proceeding. The assigned District Judge is Hon. Dale A. Drozd. Saputo is a Montreal-based Canadian dairy company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart Rowe Chandler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STUART R. CHANDLER 761 East Locust Avenue, Suite 101 Fresno, CA 93720 Telephone: (559) 431 7770 Facsimile: (559) 431 7778 E-mail: stuart@chandlerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jared Hague, Esq. Joseph Vidal Macias, Esq. S. Brett Sutton, Esq. Wesley Lawrence Carlson, Esq. SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, PC 6715 N. Palm Ave., Suite 216 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 325 0500 Facsimile: (559) 981 1217 E-mail: jared@suttonhague.com joseph@suttonhague.com brett@suttonhague.com wesley@suttonhague.com SECURITY WATER: Class Suit Over Contaminated Wells Filed -------------------------------------------------------- Tom Roeder and Jakob Rodgers, writing for The Gazette, reports that three Security Water District customers have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against companies that manufactured a military firefighting foam that's thought tied to contaminated wells in Widefield, Security and Fountain. The foam was used for decades at Peterson Air Force Base and contains a chemical found in public and private wells at levels that exceed Environmental Protection Agency standards issued in May. The contamination was revealed after testing this year, and thousands of residents in the area have been drinking bottled water to avoid the perfluorinated compounds detected in wells. The suit, which names Minnesota-based chemical company 3M, Ansul Foam of Wisconsin and National Foam of Pennsylvania as defendants, claims the contamination poses health risks and cuts property values. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of money to establish a medical monitoring program and punitive damages "in an amount sufficient to deter defendants' similar wrongful conduct in the future." In a statement, a 3M representative said the company would "vigorously" defend its production and sale of the foam, which is also known as Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, or AFFF. The company also pointed to its record in defending itself against similar cases in the past. The foam "is a product that was used by the U.S. military and departments of defense around the world because it saves lives -- which likely explains why this product remains in use approximately a decade after 3M exited the sale of it," said William A. Brewer III, a partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselor and counsel for 3M, in a statement emailed to The Gazette. "In any event, we believe these claims against 3M in connection with AFFF lack merit. 3M sold these products with instructions regarding their safe use and disposal." The Hannon Law Firm of Denver, which filed the suit, declined to comment Tuesday. The Air Force has banned use of the foam except in emergencies and has awarded a contract for a replacement that officials say is less toxic. Across the nation, hundreds of sites have been identified where the military used the foam. Class-action suits have been used in recent years against chemical manufacturers that made perfluorinated compounds alleging contamination around their plants. The new suit blames the Air Force for contaminating the wells, but blames the manufacturers for knowingly building a toxic product. The suit also claims manufacturers didn't warn the military about the dangers of the foam. "Upon information and belief, defendants had known of these health and environmental hazards for years," the lawsuit maintains. "For example, by the mid-1980s, 3M began a major program to review personnel handling of fluorochemicals and determined that fluorochemicals could bioaccumulate," meaning that they could build up in human blood over time. In 2000, 3M reached an agreement with the EPA to phase out the foam, stopping manufacture in 2002. The military is largely immune from lawsuits for actions taken on behalf of national defense. "In general, the concept is that the government, as sovereign, is immune to suit by private parties -- that's the basic principal," said Kevin Lynch, an assistant law professor at the University of Denver. The chemical compound remains unregulated, and the EPA has only issued health advisories -- as opposed to hard limits -- on the chemical in drinking water. The McDivitt Law Firm in the Springs has run TV ads seeking toxic water plaintiffs. A judge will later rule on whether the lawsuit can move forward and whether it will be allowed as a class action. SMX LLC: "Rwomwijhu" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA RWOMWIJHU, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. SMX, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC634518 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 20, 2016), seeks to recover regular pay and minimum wages, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable relief pursuant to, among other provisions pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendants allegedly denied Plaintiff and Class Members regular pay and minimum wages for regular hours worked; proper overtime premium pay for overtime hours worked; off-duty uninterrupted thirty-minute meal periods when the nature of work performed did not prevent off-duty meal periods, or where the nature of work that prevented off-duty meal periods was attributable solely to Defendants' own insufficient staffing models; uninterrupted ten-minute rest periods; premium pay for denied off-duty meal and rest periods; reimbursement for necessary expenditures incurred; timely payment of wages earned each pay period and upon cessation of employment; and accurate itemized wage statements, thereby allowing Defendants, and each of them, to jointly gain an unjust competitive advantage from their uniform course of unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent employment practices, all at the expense of Plaintiff and Class Members. SMX offers comprehensive staffing and contingent workforce solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. William B. Richards, Jr, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696 9006 Facsimile: (619) 564 6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com bill@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com SOLIDIFI US: "Kimble" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------- Scott Kimble, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Solidifi U.S. Inc. and Kirchmeyer & Associates, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-06614, (W.D. N.Y., September 7, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws. Solidifi is a Delaware corporation that provides real estate appraisal services throughout the United States where Plaintiff worked as an appraiser. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Rozger, Esq. Bruce E. Menken, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 509-1616 Fax: (212) 509-8088 Email: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com SOUTHWEST COLLEGE: "Guinn" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- THEA GUINN and KERRY MERRILL, individually, on behalf of all persons similarly situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST COLLEGE OF MEDICALDENTAL ASSISTANTS & PRACTICAL NURSES, a California corporation dba NORTH-WEST COLLEGE and SUCCESS EDUCATION COLLEGE; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC634756 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation according to proof, interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendants have allegedly refused to compensate Plaintiffs and Class members for all wages earned, and all hours worked, at the required minimum wage. As a direct result, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such compensation and wages; lost interest on such monies and expenses; and attorney's fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligation under state law, all to their respective damage in amounts according to proof at trial and within the jurisdiction of the Court. Founded in 1951, Southwest College of Medical-Dental Assistants and Practical Nurses is a small organization in the colleges and universities industry located Las Vegas, Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian J. Petronelli, Esq. Dean S. Ho, Esq. PETRONELLI & HO LLP 295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201 Long Beach, CA 90803 Telephone: (888) 855 3670 Facsimile: (888) 449 9675 - and - Brandon A. Block, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. BLOCK 433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 600 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 887 1440 Facsimile: (310) 496 1420 SQUARE INC: Court Dismissed "White" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that federal judge in San Francisco dismissed with prejudice Robert E. White's amended putative class action accusing Square Inc. of misconduct in its electronic payment services. STATE FARM: Judge OKs Class Action Status on Racketeering Law ------------------------------------------------------------- Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for Pantagraph, reports that a federal judge in southern Illinois has approved class action status for a lawsuit accusing State Farm of violating federal racketeering laws by directing money into the election campaign of a state Supreme Court justice in hopes of influencing a ruling. About 4.7 million policyholders with the Bloomington-based insurance giant could benefit from an estimated $7.6 billion payout, according to Clifford Law Offices, the Chicago-based law firm representing the policyholders. The alleged "scheme," claims the lawsuit before U.S. District Court Judge David Herndon, is a violation of the Racketeering Influence and Corruption Act, more commonly referred to as RICO. The lawsuit is related to an alleged, complex plot to influence a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court on an appeal of a $1.05 billion verdict against State Farm in a 1997 lawsuit, Avery vs. State Farm. That judgement was based on a contention that State Farm authorized non-factory parts for repairs on cars involved in accident claims between between 1987 and 1998. In a response on Sept. 20, State Farm spokesman Justin Tomczak said the company was "disappointed in the court's decision on the class certification question, and respectfully disagree with it. "We intend to ask the appellate court to review this ruling in the very near future. Plaintiffs have unsuccessfully asserted and reasserted these allegations for many years and should not be permitted to do so any longer." The alleged scheme to defraud policyholders involved State Farm creating a pipeline of campaign contributions that ended up in the coffers of the committee to elect Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier to the Illinois Supreme Court. State Farm funneled millions of so-called "dark money" through donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which then sent the money onto a political action committee and the Illinois Republican Party for use in Karmeier's 2004 campaign, according to the lawsuit. After he was elected in November 2004, Karmeier cast the deciding vote in favor of overturning the appellate court ruling that upheld the billion-dollar verdict in the Avery case, contends the lawsuit. Karmeier, who is not a defendant in the case, was named by the Illinois Supreme Court to serve as its next chief justice. State Farm was accused in a 2012 lawsuit filed by two Texas men of hiding the alleged donations and its intent to influence the Supreme Court decision. With the new ruling giving that lawsuit class action status, the estimated settlement could now exceed $7.6 billion, according to Clifford. As part of his ruling on Friday, Herndon noted that the initial complaint said State Farm "recruited Karmeier, directed his campaign, had developed a vast network of contributors and funneled as much as $4 million to the campaign." State Farm concealed its connection to Karmeier's campaign after he was elected and the appeal of its case was pending, said the complaint. A hearing to review the status of the case is set for Oct. 15. STEPHENS AND MICHAELS: Faces "Oved" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Stephens and Michaels Associates, Inc. The case is captioned Shlomo Oved, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Stephens and Michaels Associates, Inc., Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, and Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05192 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2016). Stephens and Michaels Associates is a nationally licensed collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com STERLING JEWELERS: Oct. 2017 Trial Set in Sex Discrimination Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Linette Lopez, writing for Business Insider, reports that in 2008, a dozen women employed by Sterling Jewelers sued the company. They're alleging sexual discrimination at the highest levels. The matter, once argued in contractually mandated private arbitration proceedings, has now evolved into a class-action lawsuit, with the trial beginning in October 2017. Sterling is a division of Signet Jewelers, which owns Zales, Kay Jewelers, and Jared's Galleria. Class members can include women who were sales associates, department managers, assistant managers, or store managers at a Sterling retail store in the 13 years since October 16, 2003. It's a potential class of about 44,000, filings related to the case show; already, more than 10,000 have joined. That's not all. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission separately filed a gender-discrimination suit against Sterling a few months after the initial complaint. An aspect of that case -- whether the EEOC conducted enough of an investigation before suing -- has made its way to the US Supreme Court. In its annual report, the company can't say how much it'll have to pay if it loses, but it has told shareholders that if it loses, it will be "required to pay substantial damages." It's another headache for Signet, which over the past year has fought off accusations of diamond switching and deceptive sales practices. The company's share price has fallen by half in less than a year. In a statement to Business Insider, the company said that it has created opportunities for "many thousands of women" and that it "stands by its core values of fairness, opportunity, integrity, and respect." "We have taken the allegations of pay and promotions discrimination raised in this case seriously and investigated them thoroughly; they are not substantiated by the facts and do not reflect the culture of our company," a representative wrote in an email. "We will continue to defend the company against these unjustified legal claims, which misrepresent our deep commitment to, and history of, equal opportunity." The claim The plaintiffs claim they were paid and promoted less than their male colleagues. They also accuse executives of regarding "women at Sterling as little more than sexual opportunities to exploit," according to redacted arbitration documents. The claim, however, does not include sexual harassment. Here's a bit from the claimants' motion for a class action: "As the substantial record plainly reveals, this evidence of conduct demeaning toward women originates with the CEO, DVPs, and VPROs and is perpetuated by similar conduct exhibited by DMs throughout the company. . . . "The conduct has occurred in settings that are public and private, ranging from banter in hallways and elevators to interactions within Sterling stores and at the mandatory annual meeting of all company managers held in Orlando, Florida. "This behavior includes frequent references to women in sexual and vulgar ways; groping and grabbing women; soliciting sexual relations with women, sometimes as a quid pro quo for employment benefits; creating an environment at often mandatory company events in which women are expected to undress publicly, accede to sexual overtures and refrain from complaining about the abusive treatment to which they have been subjected. It has even included sexual assault and rape." Arbitration documents describe a situation in which women in various states of undress entertained members of senior management poolside at a company meeting. They say they were subject to comments about their clothes and bodies. In one specific case, a woman who complained says she was told she was "rehashing old news" and ignored. In response, the company has argued that the claimants have not sufficiently proved they worked in a hostile environment, filings show. This is contrary to what James Outtz found. He was the president of Outtz and Associates, a consulting firm brought on to do a report on Sterling's culture ahead of the arbitration proceedings. Mr. Outtz wrote that sexual advancements created a "climate and culture at Sterling in which female employees and their work are devalued when compared to male employees." In a response sent to Business Insider after the publication of this story, the company said Outtz testimony was rejected by the arbitrator and that the harassment allegations were only included to "paint a negative and false picture of the company." It also said: "The fact is, many of the allegations were brought to Sterling's attention for the first time during the current litigation, and some appear to date back more than 25 years. The company has processes in place for receiving and investigating such allegations, and we wish that anyone who had a workplace concern back then had used those processes, so that we could have investigated their concerns and responded appropriately." Some allegations have been investigated and addressed, the company said, while others related to consensual relationships among people who never raised concerns with the company. 'Highly protected' In arbitration documents, one claimant said she was fired in 2006 after refusing to dance with a manager during a 2005 managers' meeting. When she wanted to discuss the incident, as well as her termination, she said the manager had words for her (from the motion for class action): "He said: '[Y]ou will not win a sexual harassment or wrongful termination case against Sterling.' "He said, 'Sterling is highly protected [. . .] we have our own resolution program, which means you cannot hire an attorney.' "He continued to tell her: 'You're not going to win.'" That remains to be seen. But 10 years later, she's about to have her day in court. SUBWAY 39077: Aguiar Seeks Certification of Store Managers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled YIRANDI AGUIAR and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), v. SUBWAY 39077, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Timothy E. Johnson, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23399-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to issue and order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of current and former "Store Managers" who worked for Defendants in the last 3 years and who are not paid overtime compensation or their hours worked over 40 each week; 2. expiditing discovery production by Defendant, within 15 days of the Court order, of a list of each and every person -- an their last known home address and telephone number, email address and social security numbers -- who was ever employed as a "Store Manager" as Subway stores at any time between June 24, 2013 and the present; 3. requiring Defendants to format and produce on an expited basis a list, both in hard copy and electronically in an Excel spreadsheet; and 4. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to mail a Court-approved notice to all such persons about their opt into the collective action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GXFUzqRh The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. George-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flager St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com apetisco@rgpattorneys.com SUPERVALU INC: Court Grants Class Certification in Antitrust MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ann D. Montgomery entered a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the multidistrict litigation styled In re Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 09- MD-2090 ADM/TNL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The MDL consolidates the antitrust lawsuits of retail grocers against SuperValu, Inc., and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., the two largest full-line grocery wholesalers in the United States. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to allocate customers and territories through an Asset Exchange Agreement, and that the Defendants used the allocations to charge retailers supra-competitive prices, in violation of the Sherman Act. The Motion is granted to the extent that five DC-based Classes are certified. The Motion is denied to the extent that the proposed Champaign Classes include retailers in Missouri. The five certified Classes are defined as: The Champaign DC Non-Arbitration Class: All customers that paid ABS fees on wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu ABS product categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from SuperValu's Champaign, Illinois DC from December 31, 2004 through September 13, 2008 (the Class Period), are located in the relevant geographic market, and did not have an arbitration agreement with SuperValu during the Class Period. This class brings claims against both Defendants; The Champaign DC Arbitration Class: All customers that paid ABS fees on wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu ABS product categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from SuperValu's Champaign, Illinois DC from December 31, 2004 through September 13, 2008, are located in the relevant geographic market, and had an arbitration agreement with SuperValu during the Class Period. This class brings claims against C&S only; The Green Bay DC Class: All customers that paid ABS fees on wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu ABS product categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from SuperValu's Green Bay, Wisconsin DC from December 31, 2004 through September 13, 2008, and are located in the relevant geographic market. This class brings claims against C&S only; The Hopkins DC Class: All customers that paid ABS fees on wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu ABS product categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from SuperValu's Hopkins, Minnesota DC from December 31, 2004 through September 13, 2008, and are located in the relevant geographic market. This class brings claims against C&S only; and The Pleasant Prairie DC Class: All customers that paid ABS fees on wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu ABS product categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from SuperValu's Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin DC from December 31, 2004 through September 13, 2008, and are located in the relevant geographic market. This class brings claims against C&S only; Excluded from each of the five Classes are: a. the Court and its officers, employees, and relatives; b. Defendants and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, employees, and co-conspirators; c. government entities; d. any customer of either Defendant who, prior to C&S and SuperValu's September 6, 2003 AEA, entered into a contract with either Defendant that established the prices (including upcharges) the customer would pay for wholesale grocery products and related services throughout the entire Class Period and who did not amend or renegotiate the prices set in such contract during the Class Period; and e. Tops Friendly Markets, LLC and The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (also known as A&P). The Court appoints D&G, Inc. d/b/a Gary's Foods as the representative of the Champaign DC Non-Arbitration Class; Blue Goose Super Market, Inc. as the representative of the Champaign DC Arbitration Class; Nemecek Markets, Inc. as the representative of the Green Bay DC Class; Millennium Operations, Inc. d/b/a R.C. Dick's Market as the representative of the Hopkins DC Class; and Elkhorn-Lueptows, Inc., Jefferson Lueptow's, Inc., and East Troy Lueptows, Inc. as the representatives of the Pleasant Prairie Class. The law firms of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Kotchen & Low LLP and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP are designated as Co-lead counsel for the five Classes. Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP is designated as liaison counsel for the five Classes. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/gkGb8r from Leagle.com. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne M. Nardacci, Esq. Matthew J. Henken, Esq. Richard B. Drubel, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 694-4261 Facsimile: (518) 434-0665 E-mail: anardacci@bsfllp.com mhenken@bsfllp.com rdrubel@bsfllp.com - and - Daniel B. Allanoff, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. Joel C. Meredith, Esq. MEREDITH COHEN GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK, PC Architects Bldg., 22nd Floor 117 S 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-5182 E-mail: dallanoff@mcgslaw.com sgreenfogel@mcgslaw.com jmeredith@mcgslaw.com - and - Daniel Kotchen, Esq. Daniel Low, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 2300 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 416-1848 Facsimile: (202) 280-1128 E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com dlow@kotchen.com - and - Edward T. Dangel, III, Esq. DANGEL & MATTCHEN, LLP 10 Derne Street Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 557-4800 E-mail: tdangel@danmatllp.com - and - Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Kristen G. Marttila, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159 Telephone: (612) 596-4030 E-mail: erodette@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com kgmarttila@locklaw.com Defendant Supervalu, Inc., is represented by: Gordon J. MacDonald, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101-2031 Telephone: (603) 628-4068 Facsimile: (646) 792-3816 E-mail: gmacdonald@nixonpeabody.com - and - James S. Harrington, Esq. Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Esq. K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. Martin R. Lueck, Esq. Natalie I. Uhlemann, Esq. Stephen P. Safranski, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: JGleason@RobinsKaplan.com JHarrington@RobinsKaplan.com KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com MLueck@RobinsKaplan.com NUhlemann@RobinsKaplan.com SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com Defendant C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., is represented by: Christopher J. MacAvoy, Esq. Erik Koons, Esq. Hugh M. Hollman, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. The Warner 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2400 Telephone: (202) 639-7709 Facsimile: (202) 585-1006 E-mail: christopher.macavoy@bakerbotts.com erik.koons@bakerbotts.com hugh.hollman@bakerbotts.com - and - Heather M. McElroy, Esq. CIRESI CONLIN LLP 225 S. 6th St., Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 361-8213 E-mail: HMM@CiresiConlin.com - and - Nicole M. Moen, Esq. Todd A. Wind, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 Facsimile: (612) 492-7077 E-mail: nmoen@fredlaw.com twind@fredlaw.com - and - Stephen P. Safranski, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com SYNTHES USA: Settlement in "Lindell" Suit Has Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TROY M. LINDELL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. SYNTHES USA, SYNTHES USA SALES LLC, SYNTHES SPINE COMPANY LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:11-CV-02053- LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill adopted in full the Findings and Recommendations dated September 13, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations granting the unopposed Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The amended definition of these Classes is approved: a. An Expense Class of all former and current sales consultants who were employed by Synthes in California from four years prior to the filing of this action (December 13, 2007) to July 14, 2016, and who were subject to the following straight commission compensation policies: i. The policy that sales consultants from the Trauma and Spine Sales Divisions who receive straight commission are not eligible for an automobile allowance or in-territory business expense reimbursement; and ii. The policy that sales consultants from the CMF Sales Division receive a predetermined base salary of $30,000, plus a higher level of commission with no expenses; and b. A Deductions Class of all former and current Sales Consultants who were employed by Synthes in California from four years prior to the filing of this action (December 13, 2007) to July 14, 2016, who at some time during Synthes' employ had a deduction assessed against them. Pursuant to the stipulation, Plaintiff will move for attorneys' fees not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Amount, plus reimbursement of litigation expenses not to exceed $200,000, not including the Settlement Administrator's fees and expenses. Defendants will issue to each Class Counsel firm a Form 1099 with respect to their awarded attorneys' fees and costs. Concurrent with the Final Approval and attorneys' fees motion, Plaintiff will move for a service award of up to $10,000 for the Class Representative, to be paid out of the Settlement Amount. Defendants will not oppose Plaintiff's application to the Court for a service award of up to $10,000 to the Class Representative to be paid out of the Settlement Amount, in addition to the Class Representative's Settlement Award payment as a Settlement Class Member. The fairness hearing of the motions will be held on December 16, 2016. A copy of Judge O'Neill's Sept. 20 Order is available at https://is.gd/ld66Yq from Leagle.com. A copy of the Magistrate Judge's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/P9AVja from Leagle.com. Troy M. Lindell, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Trudrung Taylor -- ctt@lrplaw.net -- Lang, Richert & Patch. Troy M. Lindell, Plaintiff, represented by Darin Daniel Ranahan, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, Michael Victor Caesar, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee & Jackson, Ana de Alba, Lang, Richert & Patch, Catha Worthman, Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP & Todd Franklin Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP. Mark Pope, Plaintiff, represented by Ana de Alba -- ada@lrplaw.net -- Lang, Richert & Patch & Michael Victor Caesar, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee & Jackson. Synthes USA, et al., Defendants, represented by Harrison Lee, Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice, Howard M. Knee -- Knee@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Michael S. Helsley -- mhelsley@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Michael Lester Ludwig -- Ludwig@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Oliver W. Wanger -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller -- Haller@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice, Colleen A. Carolan, DaVita & Larry R. Wood, Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice. TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Sergeants' Suit Over Drug Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in the latest clampdown on pharmaceutical price hikes, a police sergeant's union collared the makers of the eczema ointment Clobetasol to bring the companies downtown to Manhattan federal court. On Sept. 8, filings released by the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed that Taro Pharmaceuticals and two of their senior officers received grand jury subpoenas from the Department of Justice's antitrust division. On September 15, the New York-based Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Well Being Fund -- representing 4,700 active and 7,600 retired NYPD sergeants -- filed a class-action lawsuit against Taro and five other corporations. Clobetasol, a drug prescribed for eczema, dermatitis, psoriasis and vitiligo, is among the four generic drugs that experienced the largest price increases across the U.S. pharmaceutical industry in the past two years, according to the sergeants' 33-page complaint. Between June and September 2014, Clobetasol's prices shot up roughly 1,140 percent, and the price tag went up again by 950 percent during the yearlong window between August 2014 and 2015, the sergeants say. "Whereas, in 2013, a 60-gram tube of Clobetasol cream cost $15.60, as of 2015, the cost was nearly $250," the complaint states. The sergeants say that these dramatic hikes followed a meeting between the top manufacturers of the drug: Hi-Tech Permacal Co., Perrigo Company, Sandoz, Taro USA, and Wockhardt USA. Fougera, which acquired Sandoz in 2013, is the lead defendant in the complaint. The lawsuit notes that these hikes happened "at a time during which congress and regulators are focusing intense scrutiny on generic manufacturers' anticompetitive pricing practices," scrutiny that continues to grow in public backlash against so- called "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli and the makers of EpiPen, the life-saving allergy injections. Shkreli currently faces possible prison time, not for jacking up the price of AIDS drug Daraprim, but for charges that he rolled investors into an $11 million securities fraud. Those allegations continue to await trial in Brooklyn. The sergeants say the Clobetasol hikes mirror a rash of similar behavior by pharmaceutical companies. The Office of the Inspector General, the internal watchdog for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that price increases in 22 percent of the top 200 generic drugs exceeded the cost of inflation. Represented by attorney Peter Safirstein, the sergeants union wants damages against Clobetasol's makers to be tripled under the Sherman Act, the law that governs anti-competitive business practices. Taro Pharmaceuticals did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. TEXAS EDUCATION: Marlin ISD Joins Class Suit on STAAR Test ---------------------------------------------------------- Kurtis Quillin, writing for KCEN, reports that Marlin ISD said it's the first school district in the state to join a class-action lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency on the STAAR Test. The school board unanimously voted to do so in its regular meeting on Sept. 20. The Lawsuit, Lewis, et al v. Morath, stems from STAAR Test results for the 2015-16 school year and asks a judge to prevent the TEA from using those results against schools and students. The suit and Marlin ISD Superintendent Mike Seabolt claim the test is illegal, that it doesn't allow students enough time to finish. House Bill 743 says for the state to adopt a test, 85 percent of 3rd-5th grade students have to be able to finish in two hours, three hours for 6th-8th grades. The lawsuit says that isn't the case and shows surveys to that point. Marlin ISD is currently not accredited by the TEA. In fact, the district operated in 2015-16 on an agreement with the state that if they didn't meet standards by the end of last school year, the TEA could take over Marlin ISD. "Marlin has had some academic troubles for a very long time," Seabolt said. "We have an agreement with the TEA that was in place, an abatement agreement, to keep Marlin ISD open. You know, we look at the test the same way the parents do. The test violated state law and Marlin should not be held accountable for a test that violates state law." The school board also allowed Seabolt to file an appeal of the test results. He said the district is looking at all of its options to keep the school open, adding, "Someone forgot there are kids here." Accreditation for the 2016-17 school year will be released at the end of February. TISCH ASIA: NYU Students File Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Lia Eustachewich, writing for New York Post, reports that three New York University students claim they got ripped off for hundreds of thousands of dollars attending the school's now defunct offshoot, Tisch Asia, according to a lawsuit filed on Sept. 19. The trio, including two Master's degree graduates, plunked down at least $100,000 each in tuition to study at the school in Singapore -- which never lived up to the hype, the Manhattan federal court complaint says. After opening in 2007, Tisch Asia offered degrees in animation and digital arts, dramatic writing, international media producing and film -- with a "promise that it offers the same degree as in New York," the suit says. "However, except for the cost of tuition, Tisch Asia never lived up to the level of Tisch New York," the suit alleges. Tisch Asia promised big-name faculty, including Academy Award- winning director Oliver Stone and "famous" Singaporean playwright Haresh Sharma, and "meticulously selected" professors with "strong ties to the industry." "In reality, many faculty members at Tisch Asia had either subpar experience and/or knowledge to the faculty in New York, did not have strong ties to the industry and/or had not been active in the industry for a long period of time. At least one teacher was a fresh graduate of Tisch Asia," the suit says. The "Platoon" director, the complaint says, hadn't visited the campus in Malysia since at least 2011. Tisch Asia students also allegedly weren't eligible for certain grants and fellowships afforded to those in New York. The suit, which seeks class-action status, says the "majority" of Tisch Asia students were rejects who couldn't get into the Tisch New York Master of Fine Arts program. In 2012, NYU announced it was closing the Asia offshoot, which officially shuttered in 2015, the suit says. NYU spokesman John Beckman denied the allegations, saying Tisch Asia students received a top-notch education even though it didn't work out "financially and operated at a steep deficit precisely because NYU was providing the students with an excellent education that cost more than tuition dollars brought in." He said the school worked to keep the school open until each student had a chance to graduate. "It was a robust, graduate level program in the arts, and artistically the school was a success, with a number of students winning awards," he said. "This suit is wholly without merit, and we expect to prevail in court." TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Bid in "Frausto" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Amy J. St. Eve entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Diego Frausto, the Plaintiff, v. Transworld Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09016 (E.D. Ill.), denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice as premature. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 19, 2016, initial status hearing is set for Nov. 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 1241. Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by Oct. 31, 2016 as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences procedure. If the Defendant has not been served as of Oct. 31, 2016, the Court will continue the filing date for the joint status report until the defendant is served. If the Defendant files a motion to dismiss prior to the filing of the joint status report, the Court will continue the filing date for the joint status report until after the Court rules on the pending motion. Defendant is on notice that this is a putative class action. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=279JcNpu TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Won't Allow Delay of Trial -------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal court judge in San Diego, only needed a few pages on September 15, to tell Donald Trump why he won't allow the first trial against his now-defunct Trump University to be delayed any longer. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied Trump's request to delay the Nov. 28 trial set for Low v. Trump University in a brief three-page order made available on September 15, afternoon. Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli asked Curiel in a filing on September 12, to delay the looming trial and reset it to either Dec. 12 or Jan. 2, 2017. Petrocelli cited a conflicting trial in another California court just days before the first Trump University trial is set to begin. Lead plaintiff Sonny Low and other Trump University Students sued Trump in 2010 -- long before his bid for president -- on claims they were duped into paying upwards of $35,000 to learn real- estate secrets from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself. They are represented by attorney Jason Forge. In his order, Curiel found Trump did not prove good cause for moving back the trial date, which was set by the judge four months ago. Curiel pointed out the case is 6 « years old -- one of his oldest, if not the oldest, cases on his docket -- and he has accommodated multiple requests by Trump to move potential trial dates around his campaign schedule. Trump's attorney never mentioned a potential scheduling conflict despite, as the class pointed out, having at least four opportunities to do so. Petrocelli did not bring up the conflict until a hearing held late last month. Petrocelli is Trump's fourth attorney to represent him in the Low case. He knew for months there could be a potential conflict between the Low trial and another class action where he is representing satellite radio giant Sirius XM. Petrocelli recently asked the judge in Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio to move that trial date to make way for the Trump University case but U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez denied his request. If the Sirius trial lasts the estimated seven days, that means Petrocelli would finish that trial on Nov. 23 -- the day before Thanksgiving -- only to start the Trump University trial the Monday after the holiday. Trump's attorney said he would be prejudiced if Curiel did not postpone the Low trial because he would not have adequate time to prepare and conduct pretrial work. But Low and the other plaintiffs strongly disputed that, saying the "convenience" of one attorney should not delay the years-old case from getting its day in court. The class even took it a step further, pointing out Petrocelli is the fourth attorney to represent Trump and therefore far from indispensable. "With all due respect to defense counsel, he was not Trump's first, second or third choice to represent him in this case, so it cannot be credibly asserted that he is somehow indispensable," the class said. But Low and the others did offer somewhat of an olive branch when they suggested Curiel move up jury selection to Oct. 31 to provide a two-day "cushion" at the front-end of the Low trial and avoid the possibility of Petrocelli's Sirius trial butting into their case. Curiel moved up the Nov. 18 hearing on jury instructions to Nov. 10, as Petrocelli will be in the middle of the Sirius trial which is set to begin on Nov. 15. The next pretrial hearing in Low v. Trump University is scheduled for Nov. 10 at 1:30 p.m. The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants., Case No. 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG (S.D.Cal.) TVI INC: "Godhigh" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled EARL GODHIGH, and ANGELA OSGOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TVI, INC. D/B/A SAVERS and VALUE VILLAGE; and SAVERS, LLC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02874-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to: 1. conditionally certify a class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards: "of a nationwide group of TVI, Inc. and Savers LLC. (collectively Savers or Defendants) employees asserting overtime misclassification claims"; 2. order Savers to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel a class list containing collective members' full names, addresses, non-work phone numbers, social security numbers, email addresses, and the dates and store locations where they worked; 3. direct the dissemination of notice of the pendency of the action by mail and email using the proposed Notice; 4. permit potential Collective Members to file Consent to Join Forms, by mail, fax, e-mail, or website submission, until 90 days after Plaintiffs' mailing of notice to the class; and 5. permit the dissemination of a reminder postcard by mail and e-mail. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MUupkE7h The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638 8800 Facsimile: (415) 638 8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com cjones@shavitzlaw.com TYSON FOODS: Faces Chicken Price-Fixing Class Action in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on Sept. 15 disclosed that a new class-action lawsuit has unveiled an eight-year-long antitrust, price-fixing scheme brought by major food conglomerates, including Tyson and Perdue Farms, alleging they killed hens, flocks and destroyed eggs to limit production and raise the price of 98 percent of the chicken sold in the U.S. by nearly 50 percent, according to Hagens Berman. The suit calls the industry's means of destroying its livestock "unparalleled." The lawsuit, filed Sept. 14, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division states that the laundry list of defendants control 90 percent of the wholesale broiler chicken market -- an industry with more than $30 billion in annual revenue. If you purchased chicken from any of the following suppliers, you may be entitled to your money back: Tyson, Perdue Farms, Pilgrim's Pride, Sanderson Farms, Simmons Foods, Koch Meats, JCG Foods, Koch Meats, Wayne Farms, Mountaire Farms, Peco Foods, Foster Farms, House of Raeford Farms, Fieldale Farms, George's Farms or O.K. Foods. Find out your rights to compensation. "For years, these major food corporations sought to take full control of the market to squeeze every penny they could from hard working consumers, and they broke federal laws and killed thousands of chickens to do so," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "Instead of honest competition, these agribusinesses chose to cheat the system, killing off flocks and destroying eggs to limit the amount of production and pass the buck to millions of Americans." "Call to Arms" to Limit Production The lawsuit describes in detail how the chicken industry conspired together to raise prices, stating that in 2007, Pilgrim's and Tyson attempted to cut production levels enough to cause industry prices to rise, but failed to impact the market due to their market share. "In January 2008 Pilgrim's and Tyson changed tactics and concluded that only through broader cooperation among major producers in the Broiler industry could supply be cut enough to force prices to increase," the suit states. Pilgrim's and Tyson publicly told the industry that neither company would continue to cut production while their competitors used the opportunity to take away Pilgrim's and Tyson's market share. But a few days after an industry event in late January 2008, things changed. The suit says that "other Defendant Producers followed Pilgrim's and Tyson's call to arms and made substantial cuts to their own production." "One by one, there was a domino effect," Mr. Berman said. "They all fell in line, colluding to nix competition and raise prices by actively destroying their means of production -- the animals -- all the while making profit hand over fist." After attending the industry event, Tyson's CEO announced Tyson would be raising prices because "we have no choice." A day later, a Pilgrim's executive announced publicly that Pilgrim's would be cutting its production and "the rest of the market is going to have to pick-up a fair share in order for the production to come out of the system." According to the suit, unlike Pilgrim's and Tyson's prior production cuts, in 2008 the defendant chicken producers did not rely solely on ordinary mechanisms to temporarily reduce production, which would have permitted production to be quickly ramped up if prices rose. "Instead, Defendant Producers cut their ability to ramp up production for 18 months or more by destroying Broiler breeder hens in their Broiler breeder flocks responsible for supplying the eggs Defendant Producers raise into Broilers. This destruction of the Broiler breeder flock was unparalleled," the lawsuit states. The industry kingpins continued to make coordinated cuts to their production in 2011 and 2012, which included further substantial destruction of industry breeder flocks, even going as far as to ship breeder flocks to Mexico. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. UNIFUND CCR: Faces "Stiel" Suit in Eastern District of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Unifund CCR, LLC. The case is captioned Chaim E. Stiel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. Mullooly, Rooney, Jeffrey & Flynn, and Unifund CCR, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05213 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2016). Unifund CCR purchases, sells, and manages under-performing and distressed consumer receivables in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com UNILEVER UNITED: Class Certification Bid in "Fleming" Withdrawn --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order in the lawsuit styled Virgil Fleming, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-06117 (N.D. Ill.), withdrawing Plaintiff's amended motion to certify class without prejudice. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 19, 2016, status hearing was held on Sep. 19, 2016. Another status hearing is set for Sep. 30, 2016 at 9:00 AM. If a stipulation is filed prior to the next date, the status will be stricken. The parties shall contact the court if more time is needed and a continuance may be allowed. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=29em8Dl1 UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert. Bid in "Alexander" Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero in the lawsuit captioned GARY ALEXANDER, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-05337-JCS (N.D. Cal.), granting Plaintiffs motion for a class certification of: The Alexander Guideline Class: "any member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA whose request for coverage of outpatient or intensive outpatient services for a mental illness or substance use disorder was denied by UBH, in whole or in part, on or after May 22, 2011, based upon UBH's Level of Care Guidelines or UBH's Coverage Determination Guidelines". The Alexander Guideline Class excludes any member of a fully insured plan governed by both ERISA and the state law of Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode Island or Texas, whose request for coverage of intensive outpatient treatment or outpatient treatment related to a substance use disorder. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to consider certifying issues classes under Rule 23(c)(4) if it finds that the proposed classes may not be certified under Rule 23(b). Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b) it does not need to reach this issue. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tlBBC6Nh UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Certification in "Wit" Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero in the lawsuit in the lawsuit captioned DAVID WIT, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-02346- JCS (N.D. Cal.), granting Plaintiffs motion to certify 2 classes: The Wit Guideline Class: "any member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA whose request for coverage of residential treatment services for a mental illness or substance use disorder was denied by UBH, in whole or in part, on or after May 22, 2011, based upon UBH's Level of Care Guidelines or UBH's Coverage Determination Guidelines. The Wit Guideline Class excludes members of the Wit State Mandate Class, as defined below. The Wit State Mandate Class: "any member of a fully-insured health benefit plan governed by both ERISA and the state law of Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode Island or Texas, whose request for coverage of residential treatment services for a substance use disorder was denied by UBH, in whole or in part, on or after May 22, 2011, based upon UBH's Level of Care Guidelines or UBH's Coverage Determination Guidelines and not upon the level-of- care criteria mandated by the applicable state law. The Wit State Mandate Class shall only include denials governed by Illinois law that occurred on or after August 18, 2011, denials governed by Connecticut law that occurred on or after October 1, 2013, and denials governed by Rhode Island law that occurred on or after July 10, 2015. The Wit State Mandate Class excludes members of the Wit Guideline Class, as defined above. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to consider certifying classes under Rule 23(c)(4) if it finds that the proposed classes may not be certified under Rule 23(b). Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b) it does not need to reach this issue. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fAZcxqgG UNITED STATIONERS: Ill. Court Redefines Class in Alpha Tech Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin ruled that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and continued until a more appropriate point in the proceedings in the lawsuit titled ALPHA TECH PET, INC. v. LAGASSE, LLC; ESSENDANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC; ESSENDANT CO.; UNITED STATIONERS INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 16 C 513 (N.D. Ill.). The Court redefines the class definition as: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action (2) were sent any of the telephone facsimile messages attached to this complaint, or (3) were sent a telephone facsimile message that included the message, If you have received this fax in error, please accept our apologies and call toll free 877-385-4440 to be removed from our list. Alpha Tech alleges that the Defendants sent Alpha Tech eight unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005. In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Durkin denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike. The Court also rejects the Defendants' argument that Alpha Tech's motion for class certification should be denied as premature. Despite the Seventh Circuit's decision in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015), which overruled the reasoning in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2011), requiring placeholder motions for class certification, the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez has revived the potential need for place holder motions in this circuit. 136 S.Ct. 663, 672 (2016) ("We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."), according to the Memorandum. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/lRyWlP from Leagle.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Glenn L. Hara, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross Michael Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com GHara@andersonwanca.com RKelly@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com Defendants Lagasse, LLC, Essendant Management Services LLC, Essendant Co. and United Stationers Inc. are represented by: Henry T. Kelly, Esq. Lauri Mazzuchetti, Esq. Givonna St. Clair Long, Esq. KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, 26th Floor Telephone: (312) 857-7070 Facsimile: (312) 857-7095 E-mail: hkelly@kelleydrye.com lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com glong@kelleydrye.com UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Plan Members Win Class-Action Status ------------------------------------------------------ Erica Teichert, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that hundreds of UnitedHealthcare beneficiaries can sue the insurer as a class over its mental health coverage, a California federal judge ruled on September 19. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero certified three different classes of individuals in two class actions against UnitedHealthcare and its subsidiary United Behavioral Health, which allege the insurer improperly denied coverage for residential and outpatient treatment of mental health and substance abuse disorder issues. Although as many as 3,000 health plans could be involved in the lawsuits, the judge determined the variations in those plans weren't enough to thwart class certification. Spero acknowledged that the beneficiaries weren't asking the court to determine whether or not their claims should have been covered. Rather, they have challenged whether United Behavioral Health's guidelines for coverage are overly restrictive and violate federal and state law. "The harm alleged by plaintiffs -- the promulgation and application of defective guidelines to the putative class members -- is common to all of the putative class members," the judge said in his opinion. "Similarly, whether plaintiffs are entitled to the requested remedy -- adoption of new guidelines that are consistent with generally accepted standards and/or state law and reprocessing of claims that were denied under the allegedly defective guidelines -- can be addressed on a common basis." The plaintiffs sued UnitedHealthcare in 2014 over treatments that were denied coverage from 2011 to 2015 under their Employee Retirement Income Security Act-governed health plans. While the insurer can deny care based on medical necessity evaluations, the classes allege United Behavioral Health came up with guidelines that downplayed chronic and complex mental health and substance abuse issues and treatment for them. UnitedHealthcare created the allegedly restrictive coverage guidelines in the wake of a federal mental health parity law that required insurers to offer mental health coverage equal to treatments for physical problems. The company was a defendant in a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case in August 2015 that determined third-party administrators could be sued over alleged violations of the law. The law firm Zuckerman Spaeder represented the plaintiffs in that case and is one of the firms serving as class counsel in the California suits. In the current suits, two classes will cover residential treatment claims and one class encompasses outpatient and intensive outpatient treatments that weren't covered. The certification "is an important victory in the fight for mental health parity," said Meiram Bendat, president of Psych-Appeal and co-counsel for the plaintiffs. "It signals that health insurers can be held responsible, on a classwide basis, for denying insurance coverage for mental health treatment to those desperately in need. Without class certification, few, if any, patients will have the financial or emotional resources necessary to challenge this type of misconduct individually." United Behavioral Health is the largest managed behavioral healthcare organization in the U.S., with more than 60 million members on its plans. UTOPIA HOME: Home Health Care Companions Lose Class Action Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- The HR Specialist reports that class-action attorneys love the Fair Labor Standards Act because it makes it easy for them to take small individual claims for unpaid overtime and turn them into mass litigation cases. That way, a single lawyer or law firm can represent thousands of similarly situated workers. That can lead to big paychecks for workers -- and lots of revenue for the lawyer. But employers aren't powerless. They can prepare for possible collective-action litigation by keeping careful records of exactly what each employee does. Doing so may help employers show that the employees' claims aren't substantially similar because their jobs are different. The lesson is simple: The bigger the workforce, the more valuable are accurate job descriptions. Recent case: Shenitia, a home health care companion, was classified as exempt from overtime. She sued, alleging that she provided little "companionship" and instead spent considerable time providing house cleaning and maintenance services for her clients. Shenitia claimed that she spent more than 20% of her work time doing housekeeping tasks. She sought to represent more than 5,000 other home health care companions who worked for the same company. The employer argued that it could show that each companion had a different mix of duties based on an individualized care plan each client received. That was enough for the court to deny class-action status. And that made the case far less valuable to the lawyers bringing it and the stakes much lower for the employer. (Cowell v. Utopia Home Care, No. 14-CV-736, ED NY, 2016) VANCOUVER: Class Suit Filed Over Tax on Foreign Property Purchases ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ashifa Kassam, writing for The Guardian, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Canadian city of Vancouver over a tax on foreign home ownership, just weeks after the measure was introduced by officials hoping to cool a housing market that ranks among the world's least affordable. The provincial government of British Columbia ushered in the 15% tax some six weeks ago amid growing pressure to curb home prices in Vancouver. Low interest rates and growing demand from foreign investors -- many of them from China -- had helped push the cost of a detached home in Vancouver to C$1.56m in June, a 39% jump from a year earlier. The tax, which echoes measures imposed on foreign buyers in Hong Kong and Singapore, applies to all property purchases in metro Vancouver by those who are not Canadian or permanent residents as well as those by corporations that are not registered in Canada or which are controlled by foreigners. As many as 4,000 real estate deals were thought to be immediately affected by the tax. Those caught by surprise by the tax included Jing Li, a 29-year-old university student from the People's Republic of China who moved to Canada three years ago and has yet to obtain permanent residency. In July, with help from her parents and friends, she put down a 10% deposit on a C$560,000 townhouse in metro Vancouver. The new tax came into effect soon after, adding C$84,000 to the overall price of the property. Reneging on the deal will cost her a non- refundable deposit of C$56,000. Jing is now the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit, which argues that the tax violates more than 30 international treaties signed by Canada. These treaties, entered into with countries ranging from China to the United States, include provisions to ensure that Canada treats citizens of these countries as equal to its own citizens, said Luciana Brasil, a partner with Branch MacMaster LLP, the law firm that filed the class action suit on behalf of Jing. "When I go and buy the same property that Ms Li bought and I don't have to pay the tax because I happen to have permanent residency or Canadian citizenship, then she's being treated less favourably," said Brasil. "It is discrimination based on commitments that Canada has made not to treat them differently." The lawsuit, filed on behalf of foreign buyers from more than 30 countries, seeks to overturn the legislation behind the tax as well as force the province to refund foreign buyers for any tax paid to date. In its efforts to address a critical issue, the tax wrongly targets many foreigners who are legally living and working in Canada, said Brasil, penalising many of them as they make their way through the years-long process of obtaining permanent residency. "We say they used the wrong tool for the job. It's like trying to use a screwdriver to put a nail in the wall. It just doesn't work." A judge will now decide whether the class action suit can proceed, a process that could take up to a year. The provincial government has yet to file a response to the lawsuit. In September, the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver linked the new tax to a 26% drop in home sales in August in the Vancouver region. The average price of detached properties dropped to C$1.47m in August, a decrease of 17% from one month earlier. WELLS FARGO: Faces Class-Action Suit After Accounts Scandal ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Blake, writing for Good Morning America, reports that three Utah residents have filed what may be the first class-action lawsuit brought by customers against Wells Fargo in the ongoing fallout over allegations that more than 2 million bank accounts or credit cards were opened or applied for without customers' knowledge or permission. Wells Fargo declined to comment on the suit which was filed in U.S. District Court in Utah. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status on behalf of up to a million people who may have been affected and damages. The suit accuses Wells Fargo of "knowing theft, engagement in a continuous pattern of fraud, [and] conspiracy to commit fraud." Wells Fargo was slapped with a $100 million fine from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), on Sept. 8. It was also hit with fines from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for $35 million and the County and City of Los Angeles for another $50 million. About 5,300 Wells Fargo employees were fired in connection to the allegations. The bank said in a statement at the time that it takes responsibility "for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request." Bank officials have also said that they believe all affected customers have been refunded, and sought to downplay the terminations, saying that they represented only about one percent of their workforce. Total refunds, the bank said earlier this month, amounted to about $2.6 million. A portion of the banks' unauthorized deposit accounts generated about $2 million in fees, while a chunk of the credit card accounts generated about $400,000 in fees, according to a CFPB document reviewed by ABC News. Wells Fargo spokeswoman Aimee Worsley told ABC News previously that the bank believes it has identified and refunded all affected customers, though it encourages customers who think they may have been affected to come forward. Since the announcement of the fines against the bank, the FBI and federal prosecutors have opened an investigation, a U.S. House of Representatives committee has said it's launching an investigation and the Senate has scheduled a hearing for Sept. 20. The bank did not comment on the announcement of a federal investigation. Regarding the House investigation, Wells Fargo said that it welcomed "the opportunity to provide the Committee with information on this matter and to discuss steps we have taken to affirm our commitment to customers." A Wells Fargo official said CEO John Stumpf would attend the Senate hearing. WELLS FARGO: "Carroll" Suit Gets Pre-Certification Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KELLY CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02321-EMC (KAW), (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore recognized the Plaintiff's right to obtain pre-certification discovery. The Plaintiff alleges various violations of California wage and hour law against the Defendants and brings the action on behalf of all Wells Fargo non-exempt employees in California from April 7, 2011 to present. The United States Supreme Court has recognized the importance of permitting class counsel to communicate with potential class members for the purpose of gathering information, even prior to class certification. In connection with two joint discovery letters regarding Plaintiff's ability to obtain information pertaining to the putative class members prior to class certification, the Court directed Defendants to produce the information sought for a 25% sample of the 43,000 putative class members without regard to position classification, service or platform side, or geographic area. The Court held that the Defendants have not claimed that there is an undue burden in producing information on their proposal of a statewide basis, and, presumably, there is none, because they are willing to provide a 10% statewide sample. Thus, Defendant Wells Fargo is ordered to produce the names, last known addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and employee IDs. Notwithstanding, Defendants are only required to produce email addresses if they are ordinarily maintained in the database. They need not scour personnel files to locate email addresses. The Court further ordered that the information shall be provided within 21 days from the September 8, 2016 Order. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/tJFfSV from Leagle.com. Kelly Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla -- jpadilla@pandrlaw.com -- Padilla & Rodriguez, L.L.P.. Kelly Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada , pro hac vice, Jose Moises Cedillos , pro hac vice, Peggy J. Reali -- preali@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills , Wills Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice. Michael Devito, et al., Intervenors Pla, represented by Peggy J. Reali -- preali@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm. Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Andrew More McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rachel Megan Hoffer , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Edward Atkinson -- satkinson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Timothy Mitchell Watson , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice. WELLNESS MEDICAL: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. WELLNESS MEDICAL PROTECTION GROUP, PLLC, a Michigan professional limited liability company, R.X.N.B., INC., a Nevada corporation, RXNBI LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07474 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiff will file its memorandum after Rule 23 discovery has been completed. The parties need to meet and confer and propose a Rule 23 discovery schedule to this Court and Plaintiff requests a status conference with the Court as soon as practicable. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ULeDFcS6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com WELSPUN INDIA: Faces Suit Over False Egyptian Cotton Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah D. Young, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that textiles supplier Welspun India Ltd. has landed itself in hot water recently. Consumer groups say sheets and towels being passed off as 100% Egyptian cotton are actually made from much cheaper cotton. In August, Target severed ties with Welspun over the misrepresentation. Now, two class action lawsuits have been filed against the supplier. "Consumers who have purchased Welspun bed linens have overpaid for an inferior product," a plaintiff alleged in the first lawsuit, which was filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. On Aug 31, a second class action case was filed in a Missouri federal court. 'Widespread fraud' Welspun, India's largest textiles manufacturer, supplies home goods to a number of U.S. retailers including Wal-Mart, Macy's, and Bed Bath & Beyond. Wal-Mart recently ousted Welspun sheets from its stores, but Target was the first retailer to completely end its relationship with the supplier. Target is considering filling the void left by Welspun with linens made by Trident Ltd., another Indian textiles supplier. Other retailers who stock Welspun home goods have begun to investigate the matter further. Since the fallout, Welspun shares have fallen 2.2% to 56.6 rupees, Bloomberg reports. In an effort to make amends, Welspun has hired Ernst & Young LLP to audit its supply processes. The supplier says it will also adopt new labeling practices. What to do If you purchased Fieldcrest sheets from Target between Aug 2014 and July 2016, you may be entitled to a refund. Target has begun letting consumers know that they will get a refund on certain products (two lines of Egyptian cotton bedding) under the Fieldcrest label, as they may not be made of Egyptian cotton as stated. To request a refund, consumers can submit a web form. If you purchased the Better Homes and Gardens brand or Canopy brand 400 thread count damask striped sheet sets and pillowcases marked as "100% Egyptian cotton" from Wal-Mart, you may return them for a refund. WESTCHESTER MANOR: Faces "Baez" Suit in New York Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against WESTCHESTER MANOR CORP. The case is titled BAEZ, GLORIMAR INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff v. WESTCHESTER MANOR CORP., DBA WESTCHESTER MANOR, JOHN GRESIA, ENRICO MARESCHI, the Defendant, Case No. 55431/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 20, 2016). Westchester Manor offers banquet facilities and catering to accommodate any special occasion. The Plaintiff is represented by: LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Ste 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 The Defendants are represented by: 11 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10004 LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG Telephone: (347) 651 0044 WHITEWAVE FOODS: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------- The WhiteWave Foods Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, that class action plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss each lawsuit related to a merger agreement. The WhiteWave Foods Company (the "Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 6, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Danone S.A. ("Parent") and July Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things, it is proposed that Danone will acquire WhiteWave for $56.25 per share in an all-cash transaction in which the Company will merge with Merger Sub (the "Merger"). As disclosed on pages 53-54 of the definitive proxy statement related to the Merger dated August 30, 2016 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") under the heading "Litigation Relating to the Merger," as of August 26, 2016, five (5) putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Court"), each asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Company and its directors and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's board of directors (Malkoff v. Engles, et al., Vanden Berge v. Engles, et al., McDonald v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al., Gilhousen v. Engles, et al. and Louie v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al.). One lawsuit asserts a claim under Section 20(a) against Parent and Merger Sub (Louie v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and its board of directors disseminated a materially misleading proxy statement. On August 23, 2016, the Court ordered that four of the then- pending actions be consolidated, but held in abeyance plaintiff's request to appoint interim lead counsel and liaison counsel. In addition, on July 12, 2016, Kenneth Bottesi, a purported stockholder of WhiteWave, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, against the Company, its directors, Parent and Merger Sub, challenging the proposed merger between the Company and Parent (Bottesi v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al.). The Company believes that each of the lawsuits is without merit. On August 18, 2016, the plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Malkoff v. Engles, et al., filed a motion for preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), seeking to enjoin the special meeting of Company stockholders to vote on the Merger, scheduled for October 4, 2016, unless and until the Company publicly disclosed certain information plaintiff alleged was omitted from the Definitive Proxy Statement. The defendants believe that no further disclosure is required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the litigation related to the Merger, the defendants have agreed to make the supplemental disclosures related to the Merger. As a result of the supplemental disclosures, the named plaintiffs in each of the pending lawsuits (Bottesi v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al., Malkoff v. Engles, et al., Vanden Berge v. Engles, et al., McDonald v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al., Gilhousen v. Engles, et al. and Louie v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al.) have concluded that the claims in each of the lawsuits have been mooted, have determined not to seek to enjoin the special meeting of Company stockholders to vote on the Merger, and will dismiss each lawsuit with prejudice on or before September 8, 2016. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the supplemental disclosures set forth herein. WISCONSIN: Jackson, et al. Seek Certification of 2 Inmate Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled SYLVESTER JACKSON, DOUGLAS BALSEWICZ, and TERRENCE TATUM, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT WALKER, JON E. LITSCHER, JAMES GREER, PAUL KEMPER, STEVEN JOHNSON, LAURA FRAZIER. LORA BLASIUS, AMY EPPERG. LISA BAKER, AMANDY MORE, MS. KATHY, MS. JENIFFER, JANE DOE, R.N., BRENDA LABELLE, JAMES LABELLE, a. HILTUNEN, OFFICER MARTIN, AND DR. CASTILLO, the Defendants, Case No. 16-C-1253 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify two classes: RCI class (on whose behalf representative plaintiffs being constitutional claims in the action): "all prisoners who are now or in the future will be confined at RCI"; ADA class (on whose behalf representative plaintiffs being constitutional claims in the action) "all individuals with disabilities who are now or in the future will be confined at RCI". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j2xCaKa7 * 9th Cir. Invalidates Class Suit Waivers in Mandatory Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Franz -- sfranz@lathropgage.com -- and Beth Schroeder -- bschroeder@lathropgage.com -- of Lathrop & Gage LLP in an article for JDSupra report that at the end of 2015, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed AB 465, which would have banned mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment setting, including arbitration agreements with class action waivers. As many employers know, including a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement or clause has been a great deterrent to class action lawsuits over the past several years since the California courts have blessed their viability. What Jerry Brown and the California state courts have given, the Ninth Circuit and the federal courts are trying to take away. On August, 22, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that class action waivers in mandatory employee arbitration agreements are unlawful, holding that a class action waiver contained in an arbitration agreement signed as a condition of employment violated employees' rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). (Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP (9th Cir. August 22, 2016).) The Morris decision came on the heels of a May 2016 Seventh Circuit opinion, which ruled the same way. In contrast, both the Fifth and the Eighth Circuits have found in favor of employers, holding that such class action waivers are lawful and do not violate the NLRA. (Note that the victorious employer in the Eighth Circuit case was represented by Lathrop & Gage's Kansas City office.) This creates a "split in the circuits," or a divide amongst the federal courts interpreting the NLRA. Unfortunately, for California employers, the state resides squarely in the Ninth Circuit, and any federal cases brought here would be governed by the Morris decision. In Morris, the plaintiff and other accounting employees were required to sign an arbitration agreement. The agreement mandated the employees: 1) could only pursue legal claims against Ernst & Young through arbitration; and (2) could arbitrate only as individuals and in "separate proceedings" -- effectively, a class action waiver. Despite signing these agreements, the employees brought a class action against Ernst & Young in federal court, alleging they were misclassified and denied overtime wages. After Ernst & Young moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the signed agreements, the trial court ordered the employees to individual arbitration and dismissed the case. The employees appealed. In a majority opinion authored by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, the Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the class action waiver was unlawful and vacated the trial court's decision to compel individual arbitration. According to the court, the NLRA provides employees with the "essential" right to pursue work-related legal claims together. Because Ernst & Young's mandatory class action waiver prevented employees from bringing a concerted legal action (by making them resolve all their work-related legal claims in "separate proceedings"), the waiver was unlawful and unenforceable. Tremendous uncertainty over the future of class action waivers remains, since as recently as September 8, 2016, Ernst & Young asked the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to take on the question of whether class action waivers clash with the NLRA. However, it is not clear if SCOTUS will agree to hear this case or, if so, when. This ambiguity is further compounded by uncertainty over the potential makeup of the Supreme Court if/when it decides the issue, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. For now, however, employers doing business in the Ninth Circuit, and California in particular, should be prepared for employees to challenge class action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements in federal court and to deal with this unfavorable precedent. ********* 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 * * *