/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160929.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 195 Headlines 15 JOHN CORP: LaJaunie Appeals From Ruling in "Murphy" Class Suit 3M: Firefighting Foam Poisoned Water, Colorado Suit Claims ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Junks Claims Over Organic Similac ABC CORP: Faces "Lin" Suit Alleging Violation of NY Wage Laws AFRICAN RAINBOW: Has Leave to Appeal Ruling in Workers Class Suit ALICE CLEANERS: Faces "Pastor" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws ALLIANZ LIFE: Breached Contract, Calif. Class Action Says AMERICAN AIRLINES: Forces Customers to Rebook Flights, Suit Says AMADA AMERICA: "Rumph" Sues to Recover Overtime, Missed Breaks AMERICAN INT'L: Employee Benefit Plans Can Share in Settlement APPLE INC: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Defective Mac Pro Product APPLE INC: Three iPhone Owners Sue Over Touchscreen Defect ARKANSAS: SolGen, 2 Clinics Argue on Medicaid Halt ARTISTIC MAINTENANCE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code ASSET MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wade" Action Claims AUTONATION IMPORTS: "Conti" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida BLACK LIVES MATTER: Faces Class Action by Dallas Cop BLUENRGY GROUP: Bronstein Files Securities Class Action CALIFORNIA, USA: Wilson Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. CALIFORNIA MULTIMODAL: "Melendez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CARLYLE AT THE OMNI: "Minecci" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay CENSUS BUREAU: Court OKs Settlement in Discrimination Class Suit COLORADO: Medicaid Does Not Cover Hep C Drugs, Suit Says CROWN ASSET: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation D&C SUTPHIN: "Tehozol" Suit Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in "Mooney" Suit DXN MIKE: "Shi" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law ECOLAB INC: Schneider Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Cir. Says Class Action Waiver Unenforceable FACEBOOK: Fails in Bid to Strike Out Irish Revenge Porn Claims FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sergeants Sues Over Overpriced Clobetasol GEO GROUP: Oct. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline GLOBUS MEDICAL: Williams Appeals Decision in "Silverstein" Suit GOOGLE INC: Judge Inclined to Conditionally Certify Class GREENSTONE MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Ochoa" Suit Claims GULF INTERSTATE: "Sloane" Case Sent to M.D. Pennsylvania Court HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Debt Collection Acts HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Gets Final Nod for Settlement of "Kastis" HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Product Label HSBC HOLDINGS: Ontario Investors Seek Class Certification of Suit ILLINOIS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Medicaid For Youth ITERIS INC: Board Has Issued False Disclosures, "Ionni" Suit Says ITT EDUCATIONAL: Peiffer Rosca Sues Over WARN Act Breaches JANI-KING INC: 3rd Circ. Refuses to Undo Franchisee Class Cert. JOY GLOBAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Over Komatsu Deal K12 INC: Class Action Suit Filed Over Misleading Advertisements K12 INC: "Tuinenburg" Sues Over Share Price Drop L.A. RAMS: Judge Says Personal Seat Licenses Valid LAKELAND TOURS: Accused by "Lucia" Suit of Not Paying Overtime LENOVO CORP: Says Did Not Know Malware on Computers LEONIDAS LLC: Brown Appeals Ruling in US Airline Pilots Suit LIFEVANTAGE CORP: "Zhang" Sues Over Share Price Drop LINCOLN CREDIT: Faces "Zhou" Suit Over Consumer Debts in Calif. LUCERO CONSTRUCTION: "Merlos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay MANPOWER INC: Accord in Wage & Hour Suit Fails to Win Court OK METHOD PRODUCTS: "Richman" Sues Over Product Mislabelling MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court to Hear X-Box Case This Fall MISONIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Randstad Merger MOSAIC NEW WALES: Faces Class Action Over Wasterwater Spill MURRAY DARLING: Murray River Stakeholders Mull Class Suit vs Firm MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Ohio Woman Sue Over EpiPen Price Hike NANTKWEST INC: "Hare" Securities Suit Removed to Cal. Dist. Court NATERA INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Cahoj" Class Suit NAT'L FOOTBALL: EA Asks Judge to Bar Players' Class Certification NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weber" Suit Claims NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Revives Data Breach Class Suit NETFLIX INC: Faces Potential Shareholders Class Action NEW MEXICO: Court Dismissed Inmates' Class Action NIANTIC INC: Third Class Action Filed in California NORTHWELL HEALTH: Oct. 3 Prelim. Conference in "Park" Suit Set OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Kirchner" Class Suit in S.D. Florida OFFICE DEPOT: Court OKs Final Certification of "Rivet" FLSA Suit OMEGA EMPIRE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ONEIDA TRIBE: 7th Cir. Affirms Immunity Ruling ONONDAGA: Jail Faces Class Suit Over Teen Solitary Confinement ORLY INTERNATIONAL: "Godinez" Suit Claims Violation of Labor Code PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Miller Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Cir. PJ PIZZA: "Pedroza" Suit Seeks Reimbursement of Business Expense POP WARNER: Faces Concussion Class Action Lawsuit PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Transferred "Rosa" Suit in D. New Jersey PLATINUM HOLDINGS: Faces "Addoms" Suit Over Debt Collection Acts PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Dammann" Class Suit PROPERTY TECHNICIANS: "Price" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Customer Sues Over Parmesan Cheese Fillers PURE STORAGE: Faces "Wilson" Securities Class Suit in California RAYMOURS FURNITURE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Arbitration Agreements RC BIGELOW: Appeal Filed From N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Victor" Suit RC BIGELOW: Khasin Appeals Ruling From N.D. Cal. to 9th Circuit RELIANT SERVICES: Jackson Seeks Review of N.D. Illinois Ruling REGIONS BANK: UM Law Clinic Gets Class Action Settlement Funds SANTA CRUZ: Ruling May Signal Revival of Mislabelling Cases SCR MEDICAL: Ill. App. Court Affirms Claims Dismissal in "James" SPD SWISS PRECISION: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Olvera" Suit SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit STARBUCKS CORP: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Forouzesh" Suit STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Smith Seeks Review of D.S.C. Ruling to 4th Cir. TEPPO PARTNERS: Ponsurayamas Appeals From N.D. Texas Decision TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trial on Student Class Action Set for Nov. 28 TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Suits Provide Ground for Impeachment, Prof Says TWININGS NORTH: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Lanovaz" Class Suit TWITTER INC: Brower Piven Files Investors Class Suit UBER: Ruling Tips Drivers Away From Class-Action Suits UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Attys Seek 9th Circ. Review of ADR Ruling WAL-MART STORES: Face U.S. Class Suit Over Alleged Mexican Bribery WASHINGTON, USA: Hoffman Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to 9th Cir. WELLS FARGO: Mandatory Arbitration Clause Could Thwart Lawsuits WELLS FARGO: Faces Workers' Action Over Fake Accounts YAKULT USA: Torrent Seeks 9th Circuit Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Retirement Plan Class Action Lawsuits YASAR CORP: "Morales" Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay YAHOO INC: Data Breach May Prompt Litigation, Experts Say * U.S. Reps Ask CFPB to Include Safe Harbor in Arbitration Rule ********* 15 JOHN CORP: LaJaunie Appeals From Ruling in "Murphy" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Philippe LaJaunie filed an appeal from a court order entered on August 10, 2016, in the lawsuit entitled Ethan Murphy, et al. v. Philippe Lajaunie, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-06503-RJS- SN, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Philip Lajaunie is the president of 15 John Corp. The Company sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 16-12453) on August 25, 2016. In the appealed Order, the District Court orders Mr. Lajaunie to pay $7,000 sanction for failing to timely produce discovery document. The Order also grants, among other things, a default judgment against the Defendants in favor of the Plaintiffs and permitting recovery of unlawfully retained tips under the New York Labor Law. The appellate case is captioned as Ethan Murphy, et al. v. Philippe Lajaunie, et al., Case No. 16-3114, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by: Denise Andrea Schulman, Esq. Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: denise@jhllp.com maimon@jhllp.com - and - Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq Jonah William Brassard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN 501 Fifth Ave., Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-8999 Facsimile: (212) 691-2253 E-mail: jeff@jgoldmanlaw.com jonah@jgoldmanlaw.com Defendant-Appellant Philippe LaJaunie and the Defendants are represented by: Aaron Nathaniel Solomon, Esq. Yale Brett Pollack, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK LLP 135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Telephone: (516) 681-1100 Facsimile: (516) 681-1101 E-mail: asolomon@kdvlaw.com ypollack@kdvglaw.com - and - Jeffery Alan Meyer, Esq. KAUFMAN, DOLOWICH & VOLUCK LLP 60 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 485-9600 Facsimile: (212) 485-9700 E-mail: jmeyer@kdvlaw.com 3M: Firefighting Foam Poisoned Water, Colorado Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that residents near Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs say fire-suppressing foam manufactured by 3M and two others has poisoned the area's groundwater. Along with 3M, the federal class action filed on September 18, in the District of Colorado names The Ansul Company and National Foam, all of which produce aqueous film-forming foam -- a firefighting suppressant which was bought by the Air Force and used extensively in the area around the base. Neither the Air Force nor the federal government is a party to the class action. According to the residents, the foam contains fluorochemical surfactants including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) and other perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs, which are known to be highly water-soluble, mobile, and persistent in the environment. Toxicology studies have found that PFCs are readily absorbed by and accumulate in the human body, with multiple associated health risks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency links exposure to PFOS and PFOA with testicular and kidney cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and other conditions. The fire suppressant with PFCs was developed in the 1960s to extinguish jet fuel fires, and the military has been purchasing and using the foam since at least 1970. But the residents claim that the foam's manufacturers knew by the 1980s that PFCs were dangerous to human health and the environment. And when 3M announced that it was phasing out PFOS- based foam in 2000, an EPA internal memo stated: "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." Despite that PFOS-based foam was no longer being produced by 2002, the residents believe that the base continued to use foam containing PFCs after the manufacturing cut-off. And in January 2016, EPA testing data "identified measurable levels of PFOS and PFOA in 94 public water systems across the nation, including three southwest El Paso County systems proximate to Peterson Air Force Base: Security, Wakefield, and Fountain." Meanwhile, the Denver Post reported that "it has reached the point where the water in all 32 of the Security Water and Sanitation District's municipal wells is contaminated with PFCs at levels exceeding an EPA health advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion. At one well, PFCs have hit 1,370 PPT, federal data show -- nearly 20 times higher than the EPA health advisory. EPA officials recommended that pregnant women and small children should not drink local water." The residents are suing on behalf of everyone who lives or owns property in four water districts around the base. Their claims include negligence, failure to warn of a defective product, design defects in the foam, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensation for the decrease in property value in the affected area and mitigation or remediation costs, as well as the costs incurred in obtaining alternative water. They also request loss-of-use compensation and exemplary damages. The parties could not be reached by phone for comment on September 20. The homeowners are represented by Kevin S. Hannon and Justin D. Blum of the Hannon Law Firm in Denver. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Junks Claims Over Organic Similac ------------------------------------------------------------ John O'Brien, writing for Forbes.com, reports that parents who purchased Similac Advance Organic Infant Formula, then later claimed the product wasn't organic, have had their class action claims thrown out by a federal judge. On Aug. 23, U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, ruled that state law claims brought by three plaintiffs are preempted by the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. The claims alleged violations of several California and New York laws. Chen used guidance from a 2010 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to reach her decision. The Similac products, produced by Abbott Laboratories, were certified as organic by Quality Assurance International, a USDA-accredited certifying agent. "Here, QAI certified the products as 'organic' under federal law and only then was Defendant permitted to use the word 'organic' and the USDA seal on the products' labels," Chen wrote. "Plaintiffs' challenge to this labeling cannot be described in any way other than a direct challenge to the USDA-accredited certifying agent's decision itself." The attorneys representing the proposed class of consumers are from three firms -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber in White Plains, NY; the Golan Firm in Houston; and the Richman Law Group of Brooklyn. Those attorneys will have to either appeal or find a way to amend the complaint to comply with Chen's order by Sept. 23. They had argued that Abbott exploits its customers' preference for organic products and that 26 of the 49 ingredients listed on the products are not allowed in organic food. ABC CORP: Faces "Lin" Suit Alleging Violation of NY Wage Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- JIAN CHENG LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC CORP. d/b/a PHOENIX GARDEN, NORA CHU, VICTOR CHU, Defendants, INDEX NO. 654936/2016 (N.Y. Sup., County of New York, September 16, 2016), seeks to recover (1) minimum wages, (2) overtime wages, (3) spread of hours compensation, (4) illegal retention of tips (5) damages for failure to provide wage statements (6) damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring (7) liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for alleged systematic and classwide violations of the New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marisol Santos, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 353-8522 (718) 353-8588 Fax: (718) 353-6288 AFRICAN RAINBOW: Has Leave to Appeal Ruling in Workers Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Lewis, writing for GroundUp, reports that South Africa's six biggest gold mining companies have been given leave to appeal against the court decision in May to allow mineworkers sick with silicosis and TB to bring a class action against them. The Supreme Court of Appeal has granted the mining companies leave to appeal on all aspects of the certification by the South Gauteng High Court of the "big bang" common law class action brought by miners and former miners. The six companies, who represent the entire industry and the Chamber of Mines in this matter, are African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American South Africa, Anglogold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony, and Sibanye Gold. The action concerns some 250,000 to 500,000 sick mineworkers or former mineworkers and their families, spread out over the entire Southern African region. They will now have to wait while the appeal process, which could go all the way to the Constitutional Court, is concluded. Meanwhile the six companies have proposed a different route to settlement, outside any judicial oversight. Through the Occupational Lung Disease Working Group (OLDWG), they have suggested that if the mineworkers drop their class action suit, the gold mining industry will help the Department of Health settle the backlog of tens of thousands of existing claims under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act (ODMWA). The companies have also proposed to help identify the hundreds of thousands of people across the region who are eligible to claim compensation for illness but have not yet done so. These claims would be settled via ODMWA, with the mines offering to "top-up" individual payouts without admitting any liability. In the long term, the gold mines are negotiating with trade unions and various government departments in a bid to rewrite the compensation laws so that in future, the ODMWA will fall away entirely, and silicosis and/or TB among gold mine workers will be dealt with under the Compensation for Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act (COIDA). This would improve benefits for some sick mineworkers, and their families if they die, compared to benefits offered by ODMWA. But the COIDA Fund is even more chaotic than the ODMWA Fund: mired in controversy over mismanagement and possible corruption, and lacking in transparency. Medical doctors are increasingly unwilling to treat injured and sick workers because the fund is failing to pay them for these services. Time lags in settling claims, even for deaths at work, are very long. In addition, COIDA does not contain important provisions in ODMWA for mandatory heart and lung autopsies for mineworkers. The COIDA provisions for occupationally-related TB are much weaker than under ODMWA. But COIDA is a cast iron "no fault" system of compensation, so if the mining companies' plan succeeds there will be no further common law suits from any mineworkers -- or any other workers, South African or foreign, in South Africa. ALICE CLEANERS: Faces "Pastor" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS PASTOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALICE CLEANERS INC. (d/b/a ALICE DRY CLEANERS), CHAN CHOI, and MICHAEL SAKHALSY, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07264 (S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the minimum wage and overtime law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants owned, operated or controlled a full service cleaner which operated under the name Alice Dry Cleaners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd St., Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 ALLIANZ LIFE: Breached Contract, Calif. Class Action Says --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims in Santa Ana, Calif., that Allianz Life Insurance breached its contract to pay the full accumulation or annuitization value to policyholders who deferred payment for 10 years or less. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Forces Customers to Rebook Flights, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that American Airlines forces customers to rebook their flights if they fail to check in within arbitrary time limits -- 45 minutes for international flights departing the United States, 60 minutes for international flights departing other countries -- not stated in the contract, an Illinois man claims in a federal class action. AMADA AMERICA: "Rumph" Sues to Recover Overtime, Missed Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Rumph, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, Amada America, Inc., a California corporation, Kimco Staffing Services, Inc., a California corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC634108, (Cal. Super., September 15, 2016), seeks penalties for inaccurate wage statements, damages for unpaid wages, unpaid penalty wages, unpaid wages for missed meal and rest periods, liquidated damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under California Labor Code as well as pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief. Amada provides sheet metal fabrication machinery where Plaintiffs where employed through Kimco Staffing. Rumph alleges that she was made to work through her rest periods without compensation and that she was not provided with itemized wage statements. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. DeSario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone (310) 553-3600 Facsimile (310) 553-3603 AMERICAN INT'L: Employee Benefit Plans Can Share in Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that finding that employee retirement plans are separate from the company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on September 20, said American International Group investors cannot keep a $725 million settlement to themselves. The investors brought the underlying class action over a decade ago, accusing insurance giant AIG of entering into a sham $500 million reinsurance transaction with Gen Re designed to mislead investors and artificially inflate AIG's share price. At a time when investors were concerned about reductions in the company's loss reserves, such a transaction allegedly permitted AIG to report added reserves of $106 million for the fourth quarter of 2000. Gen Re received a $5.2 million side payment for its role in the deal, according to the complaint. Gen Re received a $5.2 million side payment for its role in the deal, according to the complaint. AIG eventually reached a series of settlements on the claims. In 2012, a federal judge in Manhattan approved a deal that provides $725 million to a class of investors who bought AIG stock between October 1999 and April 2005. AIG's own employee benefit plans appealed the settlement, however, claiming that they should be entitled to their own slice of the settlement pie. Though the court denied the request, holding that retirement plans are "affiliates" of AIG, the Second Circuit reversed on September 20. "Because ERISA imposes important statutory limits on an employer's control over the management and policies of an employee benefit plan, those plans do not fall within the ordinary meaning of 'affiliate,'" U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the three-judge panel. "Thus, appellants are entitled to their own slice of the settlement pie and appellees will have to live with a somewhat smaller portion." Appellants refer to the plans behind the appeal: the AIG Incentive Savings Plan, American General Agents' and Mangers' Thrift Plan, AIG Retirement Plan, and AIG Insurance Company -- Puerto Rico Capital Growth Plan. Pooler said AIG's ability to appoint and remove members of the plans' boards does not equate to corporate control over the management and policies of the plans. "ERISA's imposition of strict fiduciary duties blocks such corporate influence," the 41-page opinion states, even though two AIG Retirement Board members were also executives at AIG during the class period. "ERISA expressly contemplates scenarios where a sponsor might appoint its own officers and directors to a plan's board," Pooler said. "But these officers and directors, who are permitted to 'wear different hats,' must nonetheless 'wear only one at a time, and wear the fiduciary hat when making fiduciary decisions.'" The case is, ROTHSTEIN v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., Docket Nos. 14-4067(L), 14-4603(con) (2nd Cir.). A copy of the decision is available at https://is.gd/VGepeW from Leagle.com. APPLE INC: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Defective Mac Pro Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS KAPLAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC 634934 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 22, 2016), seeks damages and restitutionary relief as a result of purchasing a defective Apple computer product. The case involves several models of Apple computers branded as the Mac Pro. The 2013 Mac Pro are professional-grade computers that contain a defectively designed and implemented graphics processing unit and defective random access memory ("RAM")IRAM Risers. The defects cause these computers to malfunction, freeze, crash, and ultimately render the computers unusable. These defects are especially troublesome for creative professionals who rely on the stability of these computers for their livelihood. Purchasers of the 2013 line of Mac Pro computers have been significantly injured by paying a premium on these Apple products while receiving a product that fails to function as reasonably expected. These computers can cost between $5,000 and $10,000 on average and are often rendered completely useless due to the defect. The Plaintiff purchased three Apple Mac Pro computers with a defective graphics processing unit and defective RAMIRAM Risers in 2014. In 2015 and 2016, Mr. Kaplan's Mac Pros suffered repeated screen malfunctions, processing defects and system failures "crashes". Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Lina. B. Melidonian, Esq. Drew R. Ferrandini, Esq. KABATECKBROWN KELLNER LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213)217 5000 Facsimile: (213) 217 5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklaywers.com lm@bklawyers.com df@kbklawyers.com - and - Steven S Derelian, Esq. SDA LEGAL 8052 Melrose Ave. 2 Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (323) 954 9030 E-mail: steven@sdalegal.com steven@focusonlaw.net APPLE INC: Three iPhone Owners Sue Over Touchscreen Defect ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three iPhone owners are suing Apple Inc., alleging unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices. Thomas Davidson of Pennsylvania, Todd Cleary of California and Jun Bai of Delaware filed a class action complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug. 27 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc. alleging violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. According to the complaint, Davidson, Cleary and Bai incurred and will continue to incur expenses for the diagnosis of the touchscreen defect and repair and replacement of their Apple iPhones. The plaintiffs allege Apple failed to notify consumers of the nature and extent of the problems with its iPhones and refused to repair the iPhones without charge. The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, an order to maintain this as a class action, appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel, all damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, attorney fees and court costs, plus all further relief. They are represented by attorneys Richard D. McCune -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- and David C. Wright -- dcw@mccunewright.com -- of McCuneWright LLP in Redlands, California, and Joseph G. Sauder -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- Matthew D. Schelkopf -- mds@mccunewright.com -- and Joseph B. Kenney -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- of McCuneWright LLP in Berwyn, Pennsylvania. ARKANSAS: SolGen, 2 Clinics Argue on Medicaid Halt -------------------------------------------------- Linda Satter, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that the Arkansas solicitor general told a panel of federal judges September 19 that Arkansas was within its rights to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood patients a little over a year ago, while an attorney for the provider said the state's action violated the federal Medicaid Act. Lee Rudofsky for the state and attorney Jennifer Sandman each spent 20 minutes arguing before the three-judge panel in St. Louis over whether an Oct. 2 preliminary injunction requiring the state to keep paying for the services for three women who filed suit should stand or be vacated. The panel, consisting of 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Steven Colloton of Des Moines, Iowa; Michael Melloy of Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and Bobby Shepherd of El Dorado, peppered the attorneys with questions about whether the women should have exhausted state remedies before turning to the federal courts, and whether the reasoning in a recent opinion stemming from a similar case in Louisiana should apply to the Arkansas case. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, on Sept. 14 affirmed a federal judge's preliminary injunction preventing Louisiana from terminating a Planned Parenthood affiliate's access to the Medicaid program. That termination, like the one in Arkansas, followed the release of videos, by anti-abortion activists calling themselves the Center for Medical Progress, purporting to show that Planned Parenthood clinics in other states had profited from allowing patients to donate fetal tissue to medical research after abortions. In Arkansas, Medicaid already didn't pay for most abortions. At the national level, Planned Parenthood said the covertly filmed videos were deceptively edited and that none of its affiliates sought any payments beyond legally permitted reimbursement of costs. In January, a Houston grand jury investigating the undercover footage found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood and instead indicted the activists on tampering charges. Rudofsky told the panel that U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker overstepped her authority when she imposed the injunction that prevents the state from cutting off Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood services for the three individual plaintiffs, known only as Jane Does 1, 2, and 3. Baker said the injunction will apply "until further notice," or until the merits of a lawsuit the women filed Sept. 11, 2015, are decided. Although Planned Parenthood is also a plaintiff in the case, Baker said she couldn't apply the injunction to anyone but the three women because the case wasn't filed as a class action. Her order prompted attorneys to amend the complaint to seek class-action status, which she granted Jan. 25, allowing the three women to represent a class of hundreds of Medicaid recipients in Arkansas who use Planned Parenthood services. Baker hasn't yet ruled on whether to expand the preliminary injunction to apply to the entire class, as the plaintiffs also have requested. The 8th Circuit denied the state permission to appeal the class-certification ruling. Medicaid, the state-administered health care program for the poor and disabled, is funded mostly by federal dollars. According to court documents, it spent about $51,000 in fiscal 2015 to cover costs incurred at the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics -- one in Little Rock and one in Fayetteville. The lawsuit was prompted by Gov. Asa Hutchinson's Aug. 14, 2015, announcement that the state Department of Human Services would terminate Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood services within 30 days, in response to the reports of "unethical" actions at other Planned Parenthood offices. "The state doesn't want to go into detail about the bases for the termination here because they are not only thin; they are impermissible as a matter of federal law," Sandman of New York told the 8th Circuit judges. She said the 5th Circuit, in accordance with earlier decisions by the 6th, 7th and 9th Courts of Appeal, has unanimously found that Medicaid beneficiaries are entitled to a file a private right of action to enforce their claims under the Medicaid Act's free choice of providers provision. She also pointed out that there was no administrative decision for the plaintiffs to appeal to the state, as Rudofsky said the law required them to do before turning to a federal court. "It's important to remember here that what actually happened is a termination where there is no claim of any wrongdoing," Sandman said. She said the state's reason for terminating Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider wasn't even about Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which owns the Arkansas clinics, but "about Planned Parenthood affiliates in other states." Arkansas authorities first said the provider's Medicaid contract was being terminated because of "an at-will determination by the governor," and then later claimed the termination was based on a "for-cause" determination, with the "ethics" of other affiliates cited as the cause, Sandman noted. Rudofsky argued that the federal Medicaid Act allows a state to exclude a provider for ethical reasons. He told the 8th Circuit judges, "In a series of interlocking statutes governing the Medicaid program, Congress has set forth more than 50 types of misconduct from which a state Department of Human Services may decide if a Medicaid provider is no longer qualified to participate in the Medicaid program." He added, "The ultimate issue in this appeal is what is the proper forum and who is the proper party to challenge such a decision." Rudofsky argued that Congress allows a provider that has been terminated for being unqualified to administratively appeal a termination and, if that result is unsatisfactory, to appeal to a state court. He said Congress also gave the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the ability to withhold Medicaid funding from a state if it believes that the state has erroneously disqualified a Medicaid provider and is out of compliance with its Medicaid plan. "The District Court decision," he said, referring to Baker's injunction, "has erroneously created a third way to challenge the decision. It allows a Medicaid patient to challenge a decision ... [but] unlike a provider itself or the federal DHS ... patients lack the knowledge of facts to decide" whether a provider is unqualified, he argued. Rudofsky said Planned Parenthood "intentionally chose to forgo an administrative appeal" of the discontinuation of Medicaid funding and then recruited patients so it could file a federal lawsuit. He said Baker then "misinterpreted a section of the Medicaid Act and the right it confers to patients." He argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has said patients have a right to choose among qualified providers but not to challenge a particular state's qualification decision. In response to a question from Judge Shepherd, Rudofsky said he recalled that there are at least 200 providers, in addition to county health clinics, that are available in Arkansas for Medicaid patients to go to for birth control, annual wellness exams and testing for sexually transmitted diseases, the services that the Planned Parenthood clinics in Arkansas provided under their Medicaid contract. He conceded, however, that "not all provide all the same services." One of the judges asked Rudofsky, "Can you see any daylight between this case and the 5th Circuit decision that came out last week?" Rudofsky responded, "I think the 5th Circuit was very, very careful not only to limit their decision to the specific facts of their case but also to limit their decision to the concessions that Louisiana gave, and the bases for the disqualification that Louisiana gave." The 5th Circuit joined the other appellate courts in holding that federal law created a private right of action enabling patients to sue and that states may exclude willing providers from Medicaid only for reasons "bearing on that provider's qualification" -- meaning its ability to provide medical services "in a competent, safe, legal and ethical manner." The 4th Circuit noted in the Louisiana case that "the fact that the provider did not administratively challenge its termination did not change this analysis." The opinion also said that "the free-choice-of-provider provision unambiguously requires that states participating in the Medicaid program allow covered patients to choose among the family planning medical practitioners they could use if they were paying out of their own pockets." ARTISTIC MAINTENANCE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR GONZALEZ on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. ARTISTIC MAINTENANCE, INC. a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2016-00875644-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange County, September 16, 2016), seeks restitution from Defendants for their alleged failure to pay all overtime wages and rest and meal period premiums under the California Labor Code and any other applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. ARTISTIC MAINTENANCE is a California corporation engaged in providing landscape services to residential, commercial and/or industrial properties in California including Orange County. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 ASSET MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wade" Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Wade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Asset Management Services Group LLC, Silverpoint Ltd, Mentoli Trade Corp., Natalia Kabanova, Mark Smekhov, Ron Wood, Ken Braddock, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 5:16-cv-01291-SMH-MLH (W.D. La., September 14, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants operate a financial services company in Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Earl Brady, Esq. BOHRER LAW FIRM 8712 Jefferson Hwy Ste B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: scott@bohrerlaw.com AUTONATION IMPORTS: "Conti" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Peter Conti, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. AutoNation Imports of Lithia Springs, LLC, Case No. CACE-16-014919 (05), was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62197-WPD to the proceeding. The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. AutoNation Imports of Lithia Springs, LLC is an automotive retailer in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Donna Vales Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com dsmith@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christine E. Howard, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2350 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 769-7500 Facsimile: (813) 769-7501 E-mail: choward@laborlawyers.com - and - Cathy Mattson Stutin, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS 450 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4800 Facsimile: 525-8739 E-mail: cstutin@laborlawyers.com BLACK LIVES MATTER: Faces Class Action by Dallas Cop ---------------------------------------------------- David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a Dallas police officer sued leaders and alleged supporters of Black Lives Matter, blaming them for inciting violence towards police officers that resulted in the deaths of five of his fellow officers in a July sniper attack. Sgt. Demetrick Pennie filed his amended complaint and proposed class action in federal court on September 16, accusing Black Lives Matters and seven of its leaders of civil rights violations, conspiracy, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also sued President Barack Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakahn, Rev. Al Sharpton, National Action Network, the New Black Panthers Party and billionaire financier George Soros. Pennie is a 17-year veteran of the force and currently the president of the Dallas Fallen Officer Foundation. He says the defendants "repeatedly incited their supporters and others to engage in threats of and attacks to cause serious bodily injury or death" towards police officers of all races and ethnicities, including Jews, Christians and whites. "Thus, defendants, each and every one of them, jointly and severally, conspiring and/or acting in concert either expressly or otherwise, are inciting and causing serious bodily injury or death to police officers and other law enforcement persons of all races and ethnicities, Jews, and Caucasian," the 66-page complaint states. Pennie says Obama stated "anti-police rhetoric" after the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, that he allegedly "saw this as another opportunity to stir up major racial tensions and hatred for police officers." Pennie accused Soros of giving "$650,000 directly in furtherance of the Black Lives Matter movement's calls to violence and death." "Defendant Soros has given at least $33 million in one year to support various groups, such as Black Lives Matters, who are serving to further the on-going racial war by inciting racial violence against police officers and other law enforcement persons of all races and ethnicities including but not limited to Jews, Christians and Caucasians," the complaint states. "Defendants Soros has gone so far as to pay over 80 individuals and organizations to "protest" during the civil unrest that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, in furtherance of the violent and hateful incitements to violence perpetrated by his co-defendants." Pennie accused Farrakahn of asking black members of the military last year "to desert and engage in mutiny and violent insurrection" against their country. "During the speech, Farrakhan held up the deaths of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner as evidence that there is inequality in the treatment of black citizens, who must therefore wage war against and severely harm and kill police officers and other law enforcement," the complaint states. "Then Farrakhan reinforced this call for violence by sharing a link to the video of his speech, which he had posted on Facebook, through his official Twitter account, with the explanation, 'Why I'm calling on all black soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces to come home, unite & fight for our own lives.'" Pennie accused Sharpton of calling for the outlawing of local police departments last year through civil rights laws and creating a nationalized police force. "Defendant Sharpton lead incendiary and inflammatory rallies in Ferguson, Missouri, early on in the developing violence and incited the looting, arson, destruction of property, assaults on police, threatening mobs, and violence," the complaint states. "In one of Defendant Sharpton's rallies that occurred on December 15, 2014 in New York City, marchers were chanting death threats to the police: 'What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it! Now!' The protesters event assaulted two NYPD officers and blocked traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge." Pennie is seeking compensatory, actual and punitive damages in excess of $500 million. He is represented by Larry Klayman with the FreedomWatch lobbying group in Washington, D.C. "Sergeant Pennie and I feel duty-bound to put ourselves forward to seek an end to the incitement of violence against law enforcement which has already resulted in the death of five police officers in Dallas and the wounding of seven more, just in Texas alone," Klayman told Breitbart. BLUENRGY GROUP: Bronstein Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against BlueNRGY Group Limited, f/k/a CBD Energy Limited and certain of its officers. The class action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased BlueNRGY securities from June 13, 2014 through October 24, 2014 inclusive. 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 Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that. On October 24, 2014, BlueNRGY announced that its formerly released audited fiscal statements for 2012 and 2013 and interim financial statements for the six months ended December 31, 2013 should no longer be relied upon. BlueNRGY said some transactions involving Gerard McGowan, the Company's former Executive Chairman and Managing Director, were not correctly disclosed, thus making BlueNRGY's financial statements for the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 false and misleading. Once this news was made public, the BlueNRGY stock dropped, damaging investors. 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/cbdeor 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 BlueNRGY you have until November 7, 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. CALIFORNIA, USA: Wilson Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kelly H. Wilson filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in his lawsuit titled Kelly Wilson v. Cynthia Zubiate, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01032-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The lawsuit arose from prison condition. The appellate case is captioned as Kelly Wilson v. Cynthia Zubiate, et al., Case No. 16-16621, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 11, 2016; -- Transcript is due on November 8, 2016; -- Appellant Kelly H. Wilson's opening brief due is due on December 19, 2016; -- Answering brief of Appellees Jeffrey Beard, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, William Jordan, C. Martinez, Marion Spearman and Cynthia Zubiate is due on January 19, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant KELLY H. WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jamee Ravae Lewis, Esq. Steven Benjamin Sacks, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 4 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Telephone: (415) 774-2962 E-mail: jalewis@sheppardmullin.com ssacks@sheppardmullin.com Defendants-Appellees CYNTHIA ZUBIATE, WILLIAM JORDAN, JEFFREY BEARD, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, C. MARTINEZ and MARION SPEARMAN are represented by: Kathleen Boergers, Esq. AGCA - OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1515 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Telephone: (510) 622-4453 Facsimile: (510) 622-2270 E-mail: Kathleen.Boergers@doj.ca.gov - and - Chad Allen Stegeman, Esq. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 703-5826 E-mail: chad.stegeman@doj.ca.gov CALIFORNIA MULTIMODAL: "Melendez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Danilo Almanza Melendez, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. California Multimodal, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC633972, (Cal. Super., September 15, 2016), seeks all unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages due, overtime pay, missed break premium, statutory penalties, reimbursement of business expenses under California Labor Code, restitutionary disgorgement pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law, prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate, reasonable attorney's fees, general, special and consequential damages and such other and further relief. Defendant provides various shipping services throughout the United States and Mexico with multiple offices in California. Plaintiff worked as a truck driver. Their trucks were leased to them, thus lease expenses were deducted from their salary. Drivers were classified as independent contractors, thus denied the usual benefits enjoyed by regular employees. Plaintiff is represented by: Dorinna E. Hirsch, Esq. HIRSCH LAW FIRM 3008 First Ave. San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 822-2266 Email: dhirsch@hirsch-law.us CARLYLE AT THE OMNI: "Minecci" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Vincent Minecci and Jeremy Bokun, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carlyle at the Omni, Inc., Bethpage Associates, LLC, Carlyle at the Palace, Inc., Carlyle Decor, Inc., Carlyle Mansion of Lawrence, LLC, Carlyle of Lawrence, LLC, Carlyle off the Green, Inc. and Steven Carl, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05134 (E.D. N.Y., September 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages, statutory, compensatory, punitive, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest and post- judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendants operate several high-profile catering, wedding and special event venues on Long Island and provide or coordinate the provision of hosting, food, drinks, equipment and wait-staff for special events at off-site locations throughout Long Island and New York City. Defendants are all owned and controlled by Steve Carl. Plaintiff worked as waiters at these venues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Orin Kurtz, Esq. Mark C. Gardy, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 905-0509 Fax: (212) 905-0508 Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com okurtz@gardylaw.com CENSUS BUREAU: Court OKs Settlement in Discrimination Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A New York federal court approved the settlement of a landmark class action in which African American and Latino job applicants alleged illegal background check policies and practices at the U.S. Census Bureau denied them access to more than a million temporary jobs for the 2010 decennial census, Outten & Golden LLP and co-counsel said on September 21. Adam Klein, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and the head of the class action practice group at Outten & Golden LLP, said, "This historic settlement requires the Census Bureau to replace its arbitrary and racially discriminatory use of criminal records and develop a rational job-related method to determine whether an applicant has a criminal history which justifies his or her rejection from these essentially entry-level jobs." During six years of hard-fought litigation, the plaintiffs asserted that the Census Bureau's flawed procedures -- which relied on an often inaccurate and incomplete FBI arrest and convictions database -- violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of their substantial adverse impact on African Americans and Latinos who were arrested at much higher rates than whites, often for the same crimes, such as minor drug possession and use. Penny Pritzker, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, agreed to the settlement in April. In 2014, the court certified a class of roughly 400,000 African Americans and Latinos, who asserted that the Census Bureau erected unreasonable, largely insurmountable, hurdles for applicants with arrest records -- regardless of whether the arrests were decades old, for minor charges, or led to criminal convictions. Mr. Klein added, "This settlement comes at a critical time when the Census Bureau is planning for the 2020 census and developing the criteria for hiring hundreds of thousands of temporary workers. Instead of having its own staff set the criteria, under this settlement, outside professionals will develop the criteria, which we anticipate will open up many thousands of jobs to applicants with records." Approved by the Hon. Frank Maas, the $15 million settlement contains a $5 million fund to help African American and Latinos who were rejected for the 2010 Census because of criminal records or arrests clear up their records to ease their ability to obtain jobs in the future. Government records show that more than 70 million people in the U.S. have been arrested, but at least 35 percent of all arrests nationwide never lead to prosecutions or convictions. Precious Daniels, one of the named plaintiffs in the case, said, "My primary motivation in this important case was to achieve a change to Census's hiring practices which resulted in my rejection and that of thousands of other African Americans and Latinos. These jobs make a meaningful difference in our lives. I am proud to have been a part of this collective effort to bring about these changes." In addition, the settlement will offer class members two options. The first option is designed to help class members correct mistakes in their criminal history records, to help ensure that they are not rejected by future employers based on incorrect information. A portion of the settlement fund will be used to set up a "Records Assistance Program" for this purpose, which will be administered by Cornell University's College of Industrial and Labor Relations. The second option involves a notification procedure from the Census Bureau designed to give class members advance notice and information related to hiring for the temporary jobs which will become available for the 2020 census. Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said, "We must eliminate discriminatory and unfair barriers to reentry faced by people with criminal histories. This important settlement helps send a strong message to other employers that no job seeker should be automatically excluded from consideration for a job solely because of a criminal record." Ossai Miazad, attorney for the plaintiffs and the head of the discrimination and retaliation practice group at Outten & Golden LLP, said, "This settlement commits the federal government, the nation's largest employer, to a hiring process for one of its largest and most important operations -- the decennial census -- that does not unfairly and arbitrarily deny access to jobs to millions of Americans who have had some interaction with the criminal justice system." Miazad added, "We anticipate that both private companies and government agencies will develop new ways to weigh employers' need to ensure that applicants with criminal records will have a fair chance when they seek employment opportunities, both to their benefit, the benefit of their communities, and to the general as employment of those with past records has been shown to greatly reduce recidivism." The legal team for the plaintiffs includes Mr. Klein, Justin M. Swartz, Lewis M. Steel, Ms. Miazad, Sally J. Abrahamson, and Deirdre Aaron, of Outten & Golden LLP; Sharon Dietrich of Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; Judy Whiting of Community Service Society of New York; Robert T. Coulter, of the Indian Law Resource Center, of Helena, Mont.; Jackson Chin of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, of New York; Ray P. McClain of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, of Washington, D.C.; and Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights of New York. The named plaintiffs in the case are Anthony Gonzalez, of Riverview, Fla.; Precious Daniels, of Detroit, Mich.; Alexis Mateo, of New York; Felicia Rickett-Samuels, of Stamford, Conn.; Chynell Scott, of Philadelphia; Scotty Desphy, of Philadelphia; and Edward Zahnle, of Portland, Ore. The two original named plaintiffs who initiated this lawsuit were Evelyn Houser, of Philadelphia, and Eugene Johnson, of New York. The plaintiffs' legal team recognizes the extraordinary assistance of mediator Hunter R. Hughes, III, of Atlanta, and the named plaintiffs Ms. Houser and Mr. Johnson, both of whom passed away during the pendency of this lawsuit. More information about the lawsuit is available at www.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com. The case is "Anthony Gonzalez, et al., v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce," No. 1:10-cv-03105-FM, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. COLORADO: Medicaid Does Not Cover Hep C Drugs, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that one of the 70,000 Coloradans with hepatitis C has brought a federal class action in Denver against the state because its Medicaid program does not cover breakthrough therapies for the fatal disease. Robert Cunningham, who was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 2004, sued the Colorado State Department of Health Care Policy and Financing on September 19, for refusing to approve treatment with Direct Acting Antivirals, or DAAs, enormously expensive drugs that are remarkably effective in treating a once-incurable disease. The most widely known of these new drugs is Harvoni (sofosbuvir/ledipasvir), but Cunningham names seven other drugs and/or drug combinations that have been effective, with daily pills taken for two to three months. Harvoni costs $1,125 per pill in the United States, on average: $94,500 for a typical course of treatment. Cunningham claims Colorado refused to cover his treatment because he has a Metavir Fibrosis Score of F1, which indicates (after F0) the least amount of liver scarring, on a 0-4 scale in which F4 indicates full-blown cirrhosis. Colorado's Medicaid restrictions require a patient to have a Metavir Fibrosis Score of at least F2 to receive a direct-acting antiviral drug, Cunningham says. Calling DAAs "the only feasible cure for the disease," Cunningham adds: "The treatment denied [by Colorado] is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; is strongly urged by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America; and is recommended by the federal agency responsible for administering Medicaid. It is provided by Medicare, the VA and the overwhelming majority of commercial health insurers." According to Cunningham's lawsuit, hepatitis C is the deadliest infectious disease in the United States, killing 20,000 people in 2014. Five million U.S. residents have the disease -- more than 1 percent of the population -- 70,000 of them in Colorado, according to the complaint. And, Cunningham says, 14,400 Colorado Medicaid beneficiaries have the disease. The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing declined comment on the lawsuit. However, a spokesperson said that on Sept. 1 the state relaxed requirements for hepatitis C patients to get the drugs, from F4 or F3 to F2. It also eliminated a six-month abstinence period formerly required of drug and alcohol users, so long as the patient is receiving drug or alcohol counseling and has been in a treatment program for at least a month. The new authorization requirements take effect Oct. 1. Cunningham seeks class certification and an injunction. He is represented by Sara Neel and other attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado in Denver. Neel did not immediately respond to a request for comment on September 22. CROWN ASSET: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Sheila D. Ruk, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-03444- LMM-JSA (N.D. Ga., September 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Crown Asset Management, LLC is a receivables management and consulting firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 350-5900 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com D&C SUTPHIN: "Tehozol" Suit Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDILBERTO TEHOZOL, MARCO TEHOZOL, RAFAEL TEHOZOL, RICARDO CASTRO and FERNANDO MARTINEZ individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. D & C SUTPHIN CORP. (D/B/A FINE FARE SUPERMARKET), M.S. FAMILY FOOD CORP. (D/B/A C-TOWN SUPERMARKET), L & S 5311 FOOD CORP. (D/B/A C-TOWN SUPERMARKET), DAVID SANTANA, ANTONIO SANTANA AND RODOLFO DIAZ Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05183 (E.D.N.Y., September 17, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage compensation, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions, fines relating to a failure to provide notice and wage statements, breach-of-contract and quantum-meruit damages, and related liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants own, operate, manage and/or control grocery stores. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lina Franco, Esq. LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (1800) 933-5620 Web site: http://www.LinaFrancoLawPC.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in "Mooney" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Domino's Pizza, Domino's Pizza, LLC, GDS Enterprises Inc. and Geoffrey D. Schembechler filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mooney, et al. v. Domino's Pizza, et al., Case No. 14-cv-13723-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was brought against the Defendants for unlawfully taking a tip credit against the wages of the delivery drivers while withholding service charges that properly belonged to the delivery drivers. The appellate case is captioned as Mooney, et al. v. Domino's Pizza, et al., Case No. 16-8038, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. According to the Appellate Court's briefing schedule, appearance form is due on September 30, 2016. Plaintiffs-Appellees ALEXANDER MOONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KEVIN BARTLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brant Casavant, Esq. Stephen S. Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK PC 192 South St., Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 231-6777 E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com steve@fairworklaw.com - and - Alan D. Meyerson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON 100 State Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02109-0000 Telephone: (617) 444-9525 Facsimile: (617) 934-7715 E-mail: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com - and - David B. Summer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. SUMMER 77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 695-0050 E-mail: david@summerlaw.com Defendants-Appellants DOMINO'S PIZZA, DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, GDS ENTERPRISES INC., and GEOFFREY D. SCHEMBECHLER, and Defendant AMY SCHEMBECHLER are represented by: Daniel J. Blake, Esq. Kevin G. Kenneally, Esq. LECLAIR RYAN PC 1 International Pl., 11th Floor Boston, MA 02110-0000 Telephone: (617) 502-8200 Facsimile: (617) 502-8270 E-mail: daniel.blake@leclairryan.com kevin.kenneally@leclairryan.com DXN MIKE: "Shi" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------ LILI SHI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DXN MIKE CORPORATION d/b/a Shangri Nail Skincare, XIUNAN DING and MI ZHOU Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05185 (E.D.N.Y., September 18, 2016), arises from Defendants' alleged willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com ECOLAB INC: Schneider Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Schneider filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit titled Steven Schneider v. Ecolab, Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv-01044, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case seeks certification of a class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of Illinois wage and hour laws. The appellate case is captioned as Steven Schneider v. Ecolab, Incorporated, Case No. 16-8017, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Plaintiff-Petitioner STEVEN SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Terrence Buehler, Esq. TOUHY, TOUHY, BUEHLER & WILLIAMS LLP 55 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com - and - Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Andrew C. Murphy, Esq. DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C. 17W 220 22nd Street Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181-0000 Telephone: (630) 710-4990 Facsimile: (630) 333-0333 E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com acm@ditommasolaw.com Respondent-Defendant ECOLAB, INCORPORATED, is represented by: John A. Ybarra, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 372-5520 E-mail: jybarra@littler.com ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Cir. Says Class Action Waiver Unenforceable -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott M. Wich, in an article for Society for Human Resource Management, reports that agreements in which employees consent to have employment disputes submitted to an arbitrator, rather than a court, are not an uncommon condition of employment. The terms of such agreements can vary widely and, at times, include waivers of the right to pursue claims on a collective or class basis. While noting a divide among the nation's courts on the legitimacy of such waivers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that they are unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel were employees of Ernst & Young. As a condition of their employment, they were required to sign a "concerted action waiver." The waiver required employees to pursue claims against the company through arbitration and also stipulated that workers must "arbitrate only as individuals and in 'separate proceedings.' " The effect of the waiver was to preclude class or collective actions. Morris and McDaniel filed a class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state law, alleging employee misclassification and the denial of overtime pay. Ernst & Young moved to compel arbitration of the claims, which was ordered by the lower court. Morris and McDaniel appealed and argued that the waiver was unlawful under the NLRA. Ernst & Young countered that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) commanded that the arbitration agreements be enforced as written. In a split decision, the appeals court sided with Morris and McDaniel. The majority opinion relied heavily on Section 7 of the NLRA, which protects the right of employees to engage in concerted activity. It cited several decisions where Section 7 protected activity was found to include the right to pursue in court legal actions on a collective or class basis. Applying its Section 7 analysis to the Ernst & Young arbitration agreements, the majority opinion concluded that the requirement that employees pursue legal claims "only as individuals" and "in separate proceedings" interfered with their protected right to engage in concerted activity. The majority opinion concluded that the "separate proceedings" clause of the agreement was unenforceable. The majority opinion found that the FAA was not inconsistent with the NLRA. It opined that the FAA, which favors the enforcement of arbitration agreements, could not be read so broadly as to allow for waivers of NLRA rights. The dissenting opinion found the majority opinion to be "breathtaking in its scope and error." Relying on the interpretations of the FAA by the U.S. Supreme Court, the dissenting opinion said that the proper analysis questions whether a statute "contains an express 'contrary congressional command' that overrides the FAA.' " Finding that the text and legislative history of the NLRA does not expressly preclude pre-dispute arbitration agreements containing a class-action waiver, the dissenting opinion concluded that the Ernst & Young agreements should be enforced. Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP, 9th Cir., No. 13-16599 (Aug. 22, 2016). Professional Pointer: The underlying dispute, involving the interpretation of two federal statutes seemingly at odds with each other, is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. With federal appeals courts split on the correct interpretation of the FAA and the NLRA, employers using arbitration agreements with their employees are well-advised to follow developments in this area of the law. Scott M. Wich -- smwich@cbdm.com -- is an attorney with Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP in New York City. FACEBOOK: Fails in Bid to Strike Out Irish Revenge Porn Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Katerina Sharkova, writing for Lexoo Legal Brief, reports that Facebook has failed its attempt to strike out legal action brought by a Northern Irish teenager over the posting of a nude photo. The 14 year old has brought an action against both Facebook and the man suspected of posting the image to a "shame" page. The case has the potential to reframe the legal parameters of permissible online behaviour. Lawyers speaking on behalf of the girl in Belfast High Court alleged the image was obtained via blackmail and its publishing constituted a type of revenge porn which was repeatedly hosted on the social media site from 2014 until January of last year. The girl is seeking damages for misuse of private information, negligence and a breach of the Data Protection Act, submitting that Facebook held the power to block the image's republication by using tools to identify the image. Lawyers on behalf of Facebook have maintained that the photograph was taken down as soon as the site was notified of its publication. The social media company faced a second legal setback in Austria, where a Vienna court allowed a data protection case to be heard as a class action suit. Leading privacy activist Max Schrems is claiming EUR500 in damages for each of his lawsuit's signatories -- numbering over 25,000 people. FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC announced on September 21, 2016, that a class action lawsuit was filed against Flowers Foods, Inc. concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016 (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm in advance of the October 11, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline. You can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713- 1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Flowers Foods issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company was improperly classifying employees as independent contractors; that the misclassification exposed Flowers Foods to legal liability and/or negative regulatory action; that proper classification would have a negative impact on Flowers Foods' operations; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 10, 2016, the Company announced that the U.S. Department of Labor scheduled a compliance review of Flowers Foods under the Fair Labor Standards Act. After the market closed that day, the Company issued a press release announcing disappointing Q2 2016 financial results. When this news was announced to the public, the stock price of Flowers Foods fell, which caused investors harm. Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sergeants Sues Over Overpriced Clobetasol ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Company Plc, Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Wockhardt USA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07229, (S.D. N.Y., September 10, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive relief resulting from the Defendants' overcharging of generic Clobetasol in violation of the Sherman Act. Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund is for the benefit of retired New York City Police Department Sergeants and their dependents. It allegedly purchased Clobetasol for its members at exorbitant prices. Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2845 Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 711 Third Ave, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212)798-0136 Facsimile: (212)557-2952 Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com je@girardgibbs.com aep@girardgibbs.com GEO GROUP: Oct. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP announced on September 21, 2016, that a class action lawsuit was filed against The GEO Group, Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between March 1, 2012 and August 17, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the October 24, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased shares of GEO during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com. There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that GEO's facilities lacked adequate safety and security standards and were less efficient at offering correctional services than the Federal Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") facilities; that the Company's rehabilitative services for inmates were less effective than the BOP's services; that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") was unlikely to renew and/or extend its contracts with GEO; and that as a result of the above, GEO's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 18, 2016, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates announced that the DOJ decided to stop using private prisons, since they are less safe and less effective than federal government-run prisons. When this information was disclosed to the public, the stock price of GEO decreased, which caused investors harm. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com GLOBUS MEDICAL: Williams Appeals Decision in "Silverstein" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Austin J. Williams, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit originally filed as Mark Silverstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Globus Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05386-WB (E.D. Pa., September 29, 2015), filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the case. The appellate case is captioned as Austin Williams, et al. v. Globus Medical Inc., et al., Case No. 16-3607, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief. Plaintiff-Appellant AUSTIN J. WILLIAMS is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Keith R. Lorenze, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com klorenze@rosenlegal.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: RProngay@glancylaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee MARK SILVERSTEIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com - and - Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com Defendants-Appellees GLOBUS MEDICAL INC., DAVID C. PAUL, RICHARD A. BARON, DAVID M. DEMSKI and STEVEN M. PAYNE are represented by: Barry M. Kaplan, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1700 K Street NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (206) 883-2500 Facsimile: (206) 883-2699 E-mail: bkaplan@wsgr.com - and - Gregory L. Watts, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 139 Townsend Street, Suite 150 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (206) 883-2500 E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com - and - Timothy D. Katsiff, Esq. Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-4857 E-mail: tkatsiff@morganlewis.com msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com GOOGLE INC: Judge Inclined to Conditionally Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Jose, Calif. said on September 23, she is inclined to conditionally certify a class of people over the age of 40 who say they were denied jobs at Google because of their age. "I am not considering the merits today except for at the most fundamental level, but I will reserve that for the summary judgment phase," U.S. District Court Judge Beth Freeman said at a lively hearing. The dispute stems from class action claims made by two Google applicants, Robert Heath and Cheryl Fillikes, who claim the company systematically refuses to hire older people If Freeman opts to conditionally certify a class of older job applicants rejected by Google, the company will have to file a motion to decertify the class, which they will almost certainly do in the coming months. "The plaintiffs in this instance have what appear to be individual age-discrimination cases," Google attorney Anthony Cleland said. Freeman appeared inclined to agree with Google's interpretation, but allowed the conditional certification to proceed as many other courts favor the two-step process. "Well, sometimes in these cases I know how they are likely to come out, but I have to restrain myself from jumping down the road too much," Freeman said after Cleland had made his case about the individual nature of the sundry age discrimination claims made by the class. The real fireworks came at the beginning of the hearing, when Freeman told plaintiff Heath's attorney, Dow Patton, that his proposed class is too broad. "I was surprised by the remarkable breadth of the class you are seeking to certify," Freeman said. "It includes all applicants over age 40 for three categories. Now Mr. Health has sufficiently alleged he was qualified to apply, but there is no standard, no floor." Freeman said she may have applied at Google herself despite never taking calculus in high school and would have been denied due to lack of qualifications, not age. "There is no indication of qualification at the application stage and that is why you are going to lose today," Freeman told Patton, who then promptly dropped his argument. Freeman received the argument of Patton's colleague, Daniel Kotchen, more favorably, if only because he included the standard or floor that his colleague left out. Representing Fillikes, Kotchen defined the class as people 40 or over who were interviewed in person by Google. Because Google has a four-part application process -- a recruiter screen, followed by a telephone screen, an on-site interview and then the hiring reviews -- Kotchen argued that anyone who receives an on-site interview has met the company's qualifications standard. Patton then attempted to narrow his class during the hearing. Freeman bristled. "I have bent over backwards to give you the opportunity to be heard on the merits and now you are going to come here and tell Google, 'Wait, that wasn't what we meant,'" Freeman said. "Google has not had the opportunity to consider the modification so whatever you wrote, that is what you will have to live with." Heath's attempt to certify an overbroad class means he will likely have to pursue his claims as an individual age discrimination lawsuit. Meanwhile, Fillikes will act as a class representative unless Google prevails on its future motion to decertify. In the complaint, Fillikes claims Google has engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of discriminating against individuals who are age 40 and older in hiring, compensation, and other employment decisions with the resultant effect that persons age 40 or older are systemically excluded from positions for which they are well-qualified." While the median age of computer programmers is about 42, the median age of a Google employee is 29, Fillikes says. Fillikes is a systems engineer with a degree in engineering from Cornell and a doctorate from the University of Chicago in computational physics. She has amassed about 40 years of computer programming experience and was 47 at the time she interviewed with Google. She interviewed with Google four times between 2007 and 2014, in some cases after the company reached out to her. However, after clearing the first two hurdles of the company's hiring process and interviewing at Google's campus, she was not hired. The key to whether the suit will survive as a class action hinges on whether Google engaged in a systematic practice of not hiring people of a certain age, and whether the plaintiffs included in the class were all affected in a similar manner by this policy or practice. Google will attempt to prove that the plaintiffs' claims arise out of circumstances that are unique to each individual and cannot be adjudicated as a class action. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is actively investigating Google for age discrimination, according to the suit. For his part, Heath was 60 when he applied and was ultimately rejected by Google in 2001. Heath says his rejection came despite being highly qualified and having experience pertinent to the position for which he was applying. The case is captioned, ROBERT HEATH, and CHERYL FILLEKES, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF (N.D.CAL.) GREENSTONE MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Ochoa" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE OCHOA, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of GREENSTONE MATERIALS, INC. v. GREENSTONE MATERIALS INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2016-00875367-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., September 15, 2016), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to provide meal and rest periods. The Defendants are all corporations authorized to conduct business, and actually conducting business, in the state of California, County of Orange. The Defendants were the employers of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961-9600 Facsimile: (310) 961-9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com GULF INTERSTATE: "Sloane" Case Sent to M.D. Pennsylvania Court -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania deferred ruling on Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the nationwide FLSA collective action in the case captioned, THOMAS SLOANE, Plaintiff, v. GULF INTERSTATE FIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-1208 (W.D. PA.). Judge Fischer said the Sloane case belongs to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Williamsport Division. Plaintiff Thomas Sloane filed the action on behalf of himself against Defendant Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc. The wage and hour collective action challenges the compensation system that Gulf utilizes to pay inspectors that it places to work on projects for clients operating in the oil and gas industry at sites throughout the United States. Sloane worked as a welding inspector for Gulf during parts of 2014 at a compression station operated by Kinder Morgan in Wyalusing, Bradford County, Pennsylvania and also on a Kinder Morgan pipeline project in Oklahoma. Sloane seeks conditional certification of a nationwide collective action under the FLSA consisting of approximately 1,860 inspectors during the past three years and a related class action comprised of an estimated 158 inspectors who worked in Pennsylvania throughout the same time period. The lawsuit represents the second attempt of Plaintiff's counsel to bring a nationwide FLSA collective action against Gulf asserting that the payment system for its inspectors violates federal overtime laws. The Plaintiff's lawyers previously filed Hughes v. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., 2015 WL 4112312 (S.D. Ohio July 7, 2015). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied conditional certification of a nationwide collective and certified a more narrow collective action that includes only Gulf employees placed at a project in Ohio operated by Mark West. In the Sloane case, there are presently two related motions pending before the W.D. Pa. Court, albeit in different procedural postures. First, Sloane's motion for conditional certification of the nationwide FLSA collective action is fully briefed and counsel provided oral argument as to same at a motion hearing held on May 26, 2016. Second, Sloane's motion for conditional certification of the Pennsylvania class was more recently filed, with further briefing still due under the Court's scheduling Order. In her Memorandum Opinion dated July 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/igDN8Y from Leagle.com, Judge Fischer found that that Sloane has failed to show cause why the lawsuit that his attorneys erroneously filed in the Western District should not be transferred to the Middle District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a) since that is the District where Sloane worked at the Defendant's Wyalusing, Pennsylvania compressor site. The W.D. Pa Court said it will decline to rule on the pending motions in deference to the transferee court (the M.D. Pa. court). An appropriate Order follows transferring the matter to the Williamsport Division of that District. Thomas Sloane, Plaintiff is represented by Alexandra Koropey Piazza, Esq. -- apiazza@bm.net -- Sarah R. Schalman, Esq. -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Shanon J. Carson, Esq.-- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE,P.C. -- James A. Jones, Esq. -- Richard J. Burch, Esq. - BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., Defendant is represented by Annette A. Idalski, Esq. -- annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com -- Peter N. Hall, Esq. -- peter.hall@chamberlainlaw.com --- CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA WHITE WILLIAMS & AUTHRY; Keith E. Whitson, Esq. -- kwhitson@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Debt Collection Acts --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELICA GRIFFIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. ANGELICA GRIFFIN, Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCOTT HARRIS, P.C. d/b/a HARRIS & HARRIS, Ltd.; HARRIS & HARRIS, Ltd. a/kla "Balta Strategic Initiatives"; and HARRIS & HARRIS OF ILLINOIS, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 2016- CH-12318 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, September 16, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Harris & Harris, Ltd. is a debt collector in the business of collecting medical debt, hospital bills, and municipal and government fines and judgments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Berton N. Ring, Esq. Stuart M. Clarke, Esq. BERTON N. RING, P.C. 123 West Madison Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 781-0290 HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Gets Final Nod for Settlement of "Kastis" --------------------------------------------------------------- Hemispherx Biopharma announced on September 22, 2016, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has issued an order granting final approval of a settlement of the derivative and class action case captioned Kastis, et al. v. Carter, et al. At a final settlement hearing on September 19, 2016, the Court approved the settlement and awarded the plaintiffs' counsel $1.25 million in attorneys' fees. No Company funds were used to pay the settlement or attorneys' fees award; the settlement was funded by Hemispherx's insurance companies which paid to Hemispherx $3.5 million in settlement of several policy disputes, in part related to this claim, that were in policy mediation. The final settlement does not constitute any admission of fault or wrongdoing by Hemispherx or any of the individual defendants. "We are pleased to close this chapter and move forward toward continued success in accomplishing our important corporate goals of developing and commercializing Ampligen and Alferon," said Tom Equels, Hemispherx's CEO. "The net result of this order is that substantial funds and management time are now free for business purposes, rather than litigation, and we have settled all pending material litigation." HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Product Label ----------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 6862 (D.C. Super. Ct., September 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to state material facts regarding the Hyperdrive 3.0+ product's contents that tend to mislead by omitting that methylsynephrine is actually an unapproved drug that has been linked to serious adverse events including nausea, vomiting, agitation, tachycardia, chest pain, and cardiac arrest and omitting that consumption of Hyperdrive 3.0+ in accordance with the label includes an unapproved drug ingredient at concentrations or dosages suitable for prescriptive medical purposes. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and distributes dietary supplements throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher T. Nidel, Esq. 1615 New Hampshire Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 558-2030 E-mail: chris@nidellaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St., NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmialiaccio@classlawdc.com HSBC HOLDINGS: Ontario Investors Seek Class Certification of Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Investigation Counsel P.C., a Toronto law firm specializing in civil fraud and investor class actions, announced an important update about an ongoing class action in Ontario against HSBC Holdings plc (and hke:0005.HK). The proceeding, Yip v. HSBC Holdings et al., Court File No. CV-14- 507953-00CP, has been brought on behalf of all investors who purchased shares or American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of HSBC Holdings between July 31, 2006 and July 11, 2012 (the "Class Period"). The action arises from HSBC's alleged longstanding and systemic compliance, control, and ethical failures, specifically its violations of applicable anti-money laundering ("AML") and anti- terrorist financing ("ATF") legislation and its alleged participation in schemes to manipulate benchmark interest rates Libor and Euribor. These AML and ATF-related violations allegedly had serious implications for the bank's Canadian operations, which used and relied on HSBCs inadequate compliance and risk management systems, controls, policies, and practices. It is alleged that during the Class Period HSBC never disclosed these failures and misled investors by representing it had properly designed and effective internal controls and comprehensive risk management systems, policies, and practices across its global operations, including in Canada, and by touting its disciplined, ethical culture of risk management and adherence to a Code of Ethics, Group Values and Business Principles, and certain external codes of conduct. The plaintiff alleges the truth about HSBC's longstanding and systemic compliance failures was at least partially revealed in July 2012 through media reports, a U.S. Senate Subcommittee investigation addressing the bank's role in money laundering and terrorist financing, and the release of two thousand pages of internal HSBC documents. Following the release of this information, there was a significant decline in HSBC's share price, resulting in substantial financial harm to its shareholders. The action seeks damages of $20 billion on behalf of the investor class members. The plaintiff has served HSBC with a motion record in support of certifying the action as a class proceeding and for leave to pursue statutory claims for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act. Investors who bought HSBC shares or ADRs between July 31, 2006 and July 11, 2012 are urged to contact Investigation Counsel P.C. for further information about this class action. ILLINOIS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Medicaid For Youth ----------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Heffernan, writing for WBEZ News, reports that in a recent class action lawsuit families said Illinois wasn't giving children on Aedicaid access to necessary mental health help. Families said it was particularly hard to get treatment in the community and children were unnecessarily ending up institutions. The state and families have now reached a settlement. It forces the state to pay for services, including community-based therapy and in-home support. The hope is that more children will be able to stay with their families. The state will not comment until the settlement gets final court approval. That's expected to happen in late December. ITERIS INC: Board Has Issued False Disclosures, "Ionni" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD IONNI, derivatively on behalf of ITERIS, INC. and individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of ITERIS, INC. v. JOE BERGERA, RICHARD CHAR, KEVIN C. DALY, GREGORY A. MINER, ABBAS MOHADDES, GERARD M. MOONEY, THOMAS L. THOMAS, MIKEL H. WILLIAMS, AND ITERIS, INC., Defendants. and ITERIS, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00807-UNA (D. Del., September 15, 2016), is brought on behalf of similarly situated stockholders of Iteris alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy false and misleading disclosures made by the Company's Board of Directors to Iteris's stockholders in proxy statements issued in connection with the Company's 2014 and 2015 annual meetings of stockholders, and to recover on the Company's behalf stock options granted as a result of those tainted votes, including stock options granted to the Company's Chief Executive Officer and President, Joe Bergera. Iteris is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Ana, California. According to its SEC filings, Iteris is "a provider of intelligent information solutions for both the traffic management and global agribusiness markets." The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Douglas E. Julie, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP 65 Broadway, Suite 828 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 725-1000 E-mail: spurcell@pjlfirm.com djulie@pjlfirm.com rl@pjlfirm.com ITT EDUCATIONAL: Peiffer Rosca Sues Over WARN Act Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------- The Peiffer Rosca Wolf law firm filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, on Sept. 7, 2016, alleging ITT Educational Services, Inc., commonly known as "ITT Tech" or "ITT Technical Institute," violated its now-former employees' rights by not giving adequate notice as required by the WARN Act. The Department of Education had been investigating ITT Tech since the Fall of 2014. On September 2, 2016, ITT Tech employees were told that they were going to receive a "comp day" and that attendance was not required on the Tuesday following Labor Day Weekend. Former ITT Tech employees received an email on September 6, 2016 providing notice of termination. The lawsuit seeks to recover, on behalf of all ITT Tech employees, 60 days' backpay, health insurance benefits, and retirement benefits. What You May Do The Peiffer Rosca Wolf lawyers are prepared to take further action and seek payment of backpay and other benefits on behalf of ITT Tech employees who were terminated without proper notice. If you worked for ITT Educational Services, Inc. and/or ITT Tech and wish to obtain additional information about our investigation or would like to discuss this matter or your rights, please visit Brandon Wise toll free at 888-998-0520 or by email at bwise@prwlegal.com. The Peiffer Rosca Wolf law firm represents employees whose rights have been violated by their employer. JANI-KING INC: 3rd Circ. Refuses to Undo Franchisee Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that the Third Circuit on September 21 said a lower court ruled correctly when it said that franchisees for the world's largest commercial cleaning franchisor could pursue claims that they had been denied wages via class action. In a published decision, the panel denied Jani-King Inc.'s bid to have the class certification for approximately 300 Philadelphia- area franchisees reversed, finding all members of the class were subject to a shared set of documents. "The Jani-King franchise agreement, policies manual and training manual are common to the class -- they apply to the franchisee who has no employees and services a low-value contract and to the franchisee with dozens of employees and many cleaning contracts. These documents describe the level of Jani-King's right to control its franchisees," Judge D. Michael Fisher said in the opinion. Two Jani-King franchisees sued the company in 2009, claiming they were miscategorized and should be treated as employees. The two assert that they rarely or never hired employees to help with cleaning work and are owed wages under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The law obligates employers to pay wages and agreed-upon benefits in a regular fashion and limits the deductions that can be made. After the cleaners' claims were trimmed in 2012, U.S. District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled to certify the class in 2015. Jani-King appealed the ruling, arguing the question of whether the cleaners were employees could not be resolved on a classwide basis. The company also said that because the documents in question could not be used to determine the employment status of the plaintiffs under Pennsylvania law, they were inappropriately considered in the class certification ruling. The panel looked at case law to conclude that this was not accurate. "Under certain circumstances ... an employment relationship -- or the lack of one -- can be determined by examining the documents alone," Judge Fisher said. Jani-King also asked the judges to examine the documents to rule on the merits of the case, with reference to the state's multipart test for determining employment relationships. But the panel declined. "Jani-King may ultimately be correct that the franchise agreement and manual do not contain sufficient controls over the day-to-day work of its franchisees to make them employees under Pennsylvania law, and we express no opinion on that matter here," Judge Fisher said. "If Jani-King is correct and the documents cannot, as a matter of fact, establish that the franchisees are employees, Jani-King will prevail classwide." Judge Robert Cowen dissented from the ruling, calling franchising "a bedrock of the American economy" and saying that the majority opinion threatens its viability. "We're very pleased with the decision. I've been litigating against these so-called 'cleaning franchise companies' for 10 years," said attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the plaintiffs. "They're essentially selling jobs to immigrant workers who are willing to put their savings -- thousands of dollars -- into getting cleaning work." She secured a $5.5 million settlement in a similar case against Coverall North America Inc. in Massachusetts federal court in 2015. Stephen Hagedorn, general counsel for Jani-King, highlighted the fact that the panel declined to rule on the merits of the case as well as Judge Cowen's favorable conclusions. "We're disappointed in the decision, and we certainly believe that it will encourage more class actions against franchisors," he said. Jani-King is represented by Kerry L. Bundy, Eileen M. Hunter and Aaron D. Van Oort of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan and Adelaide Pagano of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC and David J. Cohen. The case is Williams et al. v. Jani-King of Philadelphia et al., case number 15-2049, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. JOY GLOBAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Over Komatsu Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, case no. 2:16-cv-01153, on behalf of shareholders of Joy Global, Inc. who held Joy securities on the record date, September 1, 2016, and have been harmed by Joy's and its board of directors' alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Komatsu America Corp. On July 21, 2016, the Company announced it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Joy will merge with Pine Solutions, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Komatsu, and will thereafter continue as the surviving corporation. The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction is expected to occur October 19, 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Board, Joy shareholders will receive $28.30 in cash per share for each share of Joy they own. The complaint claims that this offer is inadequate in light of the Company's recent financial performance and strong growth prospects, and that the Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy that was filed with the SEC soliciting shareholder votes provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company's financials and the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Sept. 7. Any member of the putative 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. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com K12 INC: Class Action Suit Filed Over Misleading Advertisements --------------------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP announced on September 7, 2016, that a class action lawsuit has been filed against K12, Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the September 19, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased K12 shares during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com. There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, K12 issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company published misleading advertisements about students' academic progress, parent satisfaction, graduates' eligibility for admission into the University of California and California State University, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of K12's instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials provided to students; that the Company submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to receive additional funding; that K12 was open to potential civil and criminal liability due to these practices; that K12 would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on its operations and prospects; and as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details emerged, shares of K12 fell in value, which caused investors harm. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com. K12 INC: "Tuinenburg" Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ Gil Tuinenburg, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. K12 Inc., Ronald J. Packard, Nathaniel A. Davis and James J. Rhyu, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05305, (N.D. Cal., September 15, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. K12 is a technology-based education company that purportedly provides educational products and solutions to public school districts, public schools, virtual charter schools, private schools and families. Defendants failed to disclose that they were publishing misleading advertisements about students' academic progress, parent satisfaction, their graduates' eligibility for University of California and California State University admission and class sizes. K12 share prices fell substantially. Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Wagner, Esq. THE WAGNER FIRM 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 491-7949 Facsimile: (310) 694-3967 Email: avi@thewagnerfirm.com - and - Todd H. Henderson, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 Email: henderson@bespc.com L.A. RAMS: Judge Says Personal Seat Licenses Valid -------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Los Angeles Rams must grant season tickets to some fans who bought personal seat licenses while the team was in St. Louis, a federal judge ruled on September 21. U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. found that the personal seat licenses are valid even though the NFL team moved to Los Angeles. The Rams must also refund deposits for others who bought the licenses. The ruling covers three class actions filed shortly after the Rams' move was approved in January. Those cases were consolidated into one. Envision LLC and Richard Arnold argued that their seat licenses were still valid despite the team's move and that they had the right to buy season tickets in Los Angeles. The Rams claimed the licenses were terminated by the move. The other plaintiff, Ronald McAllister, claimed the Rams terminated their contracts with the move and therefore owed the license-holders refunds on their deposits. The Rams were not available for comment late on September 21. More than 46,000 fans bought the licenses when the Rams moved to St. Louis from Los Angeles 21 years ago. The licenses grant owners the right to buy season tickets. Limbaugh found that two different contracts were issued -- some directly by the Rams and others from the team's ticketing agent, FANS Inc. Limbaugh found that fans who bought seat licenses directly from the Rams were entitled to buy season tickets even with the move to Los Angeles, because those agreements never stated that the agreement was terminated due to relocation. However, people who bought licenses from FANS Inc. were not entitled to season tickets, because the FANS contract states that it is terminated in the event of a Rams relocation. Limbaugh noted that the FANS contract states that the Rams can terminate the contract for any reason and refund "part or all" of the license-holder's deposit. Deposit is not defined in the contract. Limbaugh said he would determine the amount of a deposit later. The consolidated cases are: McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, No. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.); Envision, LLC, et al. v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00262-CDP (E.D. Mo.); Arnold, et al. v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-cv-00297-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.). LAKELAND TOURS: Accused by "Lucia" Suit of Not Paying Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA LUCIA, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. LAKELAND TOURS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as WORLDSTRIDES; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2016-00875289-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., September 15, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime and minimum wages, and to provide meal and rest periods. Lakeland Tours LLC, doing business as Worldstrides, is a Delaware limited liability company, doing business in Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Defendants offer middle school and high school students educational travel programs to Washington D.C., New York, and other historic East Coast destinations, as well as science programs to Central Florida, the Florida Keys, and the Everglades. The Plaintiff is represented by: Levik Yarian, Esq. N.P. Seitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEVIK YARIAN, APLC 700 N. Central Ave., Suite 470 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 459-4999 Facsimile: (818) 484-2345 E-mail: levik@yarianlaw.com nick@yarianlaw.com LENOVO CORP: Says Did Not Know Malware on Computers --------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that computer manufacturer Lenovo insisted it did not know malware was installed on computers it sold to consumers, and that no one was harmed by the presence of the malicious software during a hearing in San Jose, Calif. federal court on September 23. Daniel Stephenson, attorney for Lenovo, asked U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte to refrain from certifying a class in the case, arguing none of the four people who bought Lenovo computers infected with faulty software was harmed and therefore lack sufficient reason to sue. "What we have here, your honor, are witnesses who are talking about a theoretical vulnerability that was never exploited," Stephenson said. "This is a big class action with a lot of damages for people who were not injured." The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Andrew Mura, rebutted the argument by saying they were injured at the point of sale -- by purchasing defective equipment with preinstalled malware they didn't know about, which reduced the value of their laptops. "The plaintiffs testified that it was important for them to know whether the computers were installed with malware," Mura said. Their second rebuttal focused on what they construe as an actual injury, namely the malware called Superfish, which allows Lenovo to see interactions between the user and a website like Amazon in order to target ads. "They wanted this information so they could demonstrate ads to clients and to make profit," Mura said. "It's a money-making scheme." Stephenson argued that Lenovo was unaware the software had these capabilities at the time it went to market and that as soon as it became aware, Lenovo addressed the issue by removing the offending software. Furthermore, despite Superfish using search data and browsing history to target ads, no private information such as emails, credit cards or dates of birth were disclosed by the software. "If information is collected that cannot be attached to a particular person, is that a privacy violation?" Stephenson asked the judge. Whyte, whose courtroom demeanor is taciturn compared to other judges in the Northern District, did not indicate whether he was willing to certify a class. But in other cases, including a recently dismissed case against Facebook and another against Google, judges refuse class certification due to a number of factors that complicate the commonality question. In this case, however, all of the plaintiffs are working with the same computer -- a point absent in the privacy cases against Facebook and Google. Mura further said a class action is necessary because trying the cases individually is burdensome, particularly when accounting for the expense of hiring experts to parse the technical information associated with the claims. Whyte took the matter under submission and is expected to issue a decision in the coming months. LEONIDAS LLC: Brown Appeals Ruling in US Airline Pilots Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Federick M. Brown, Jr., and Jose J. Gonzalez filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. ROGER VELEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated former America West Pilots, and LEONIDAS, LLC, Defendants, No. 3:14-cv-00577-RJC-DCK, in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte. The appellate case is captioned as US Airline Pilots Association v. Frederick Brown, Jr., Case No. 16-2060, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 26, 2016, Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., granted the joint motion for final approval of class action settlement agreement and release in the Case. A full-text copy of Judge Conrad's September 7, 2016 order is available for free at https://is.gd/MbjwkY from Leagle.com. The Appellants each filed a set of five identical objections to the Joint Motion. They argued that the representatives and class counsel for the East Pilot Settlement Class are inadequate representatives of the class, and that the class notice was inadequate because it did not disclose necessary information. Judge Conrad, however, found that the notice appears to be sufficient. The original case involves claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and alleges violations of Title V of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. section 501(b), with respect to the validity of the actions taken by the U.S. Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) National Officers to defer dissolution and distribution of assets and related decisions. Plaintiff-Appellee US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION is represented by: John West Gresham, Esq. TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC 301 East Park Avenue Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 338-1220 E-mail: jgresham@tinfulton.com - and - Zachary Richard Harkin, Esq. Joy Kim Mele, Esq. Brian O'Dwyer, Esq. Gary Silverman, Esq. O'DWYER & BERNSTEIN LLP 52 Duane Street New York, NY 10007-0000 Telephone: (212) 571-7100 E-mail: zharkin@odblaw.com jmele@odblaw.com bodwyer@odblaw.com gsilverman@odblaw.com Defendants ROGER VELEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated former America West Pilots, and LEONIDAS, LLC, are represented by: Kelly J. Flood, Esq. Marty Harper, Esq. SHUGHART THOMPSON & KILROY, PC 3636 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 650-2043 Facsimile: (602) 264-7033 - and - C. Grainger Pierce, Jr., Esq. NEXSEN PRUET, PLLC 227 West Trade Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 338-5321 Facsimile: (704) 805-4712 E-mail: gpierce@nexsenpruet.com LIFEVANTAGE CORP: "Zhang" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Jun Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lifevantage Corporation, Darren Jay Jensen and Mark R. Jaggi, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00965, (D. Utah., September 15, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LifeVantage identifies, researches, develops, and distributes nutraceutical dietary supplements and skin care products. Defendants failed to disclose that LifeVantage lacked effective internal financial controls. As a result, the Company had improperly accounted for sales in certain international markets, along with associated revenue and income tax accruals. Zhang owns shares of stock of LifeVantage. Plaintiff is represented by: Zane L Christensen, Esq. Steven A. Christensen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 9980 South 300 West, Ste 200 Sandy, UT 84070 Tel: 801-676-6447 Fax: 888-569-2786 Email: zane@christensenyounglaw.com steven@christensenyounglaw.com LINCOLN CREDIT: Faces "Zhou" Suit Over Consumer Debts in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- JIE ZHOU, an individual and also known as Jacky Zhou; CECILIA CHONG, an individual and also known as Chew F. Chong and Chew F. Wong; and LAN LI, an individual v. LINCOLN CREDIT CENTER, INC, a California corporation; RUSSEL TANG, an individual; KEN DUONG, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC634052 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 15, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons within California, who retained the debt settlement services of Lincoln Credit from 2012 and up until the date of entry of judgment after trial, in order to negotiate and settle their unsecured consumer debts with the persons' unsecured creditors. Lincoln Credit Center, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in San Diego, California. Lincoln Credit operates from multiple locations in the state of California, and one of them is in San Gabriel, California, where the Plaintiffs entered into agreements with Lincoln Credit. Russel Tang and Ken Duong are residents of the state of California. Ken Duong is the titular owner of Lincoln Credit, but is an associate of and a mere front-man for Defendant Tang, who in fact owns, controls and operates Lincoln Credit, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sam X. J. Wu, Esq. Alexei Brenot, Esq. William G. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAM X.J. WU, APC 8600 Utica Ave, Building 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone: (626) 588-2388 Facsimile: (626) 656-8088 E-mail: samwulaw@yahoo.com LUCERO CONSTRUCTION: "Merlos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Ismael Merlos, individually and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Lucero Construction 1, Inc. and Luis Lucero, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 08965, (N.D. Ill., September 15, 2016), seeks overtime wages, unpaid wages for three years, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff worked for Defendants performing remodeling projects. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Susan J. Best, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Tel: 312-878-1263 Email: sbest@yourclg.com MANPOWER INC: Accord in Wage & Hour Suit Fails to Win Court OK -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned, JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV- 03787-LHK (N.D. Cal.). In her Order dated September 8, 2016 available at https://is.gd/GQpFB0 from Leagle.com, Judge Koh held that there are obvious deficiencies with Plaintiffs' motion. These deficiencies include: (a) the failure of the Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice to notify Class Members about related cases and released claims, (b) tension over the Class definition and released claims, (c) issues regarding the objection procedure, and (d) other issues. Plaintiffs brought a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against a Manpower entity. Plaintiff Claudia Padilla (Padilla) was employed by Manpower CP from December 2011 to March 2014. Plaintiff Lesli Guido (Guido) was employed by Manpower CP from March 2011 to October 2011. A third Plaintiff, Juventina Mata, was dismissed from the action after the parties discovered that "there was no record of Ms. Mata ever having worked for any of the Defendants." As part of their employment, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants required Plaintiffs to attend an orientation as well as trainings related to Defendants' timekeeping and other internal processes. Plaintiffs further aver that they were required to attend client- specific orientations and meetings, which included post- termination meetings. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs for engaging in these activities, did not reimburse Plaintiffs for expenses incurred related to these activities, and did not provide accurate wage statements to reflect Plaintiffs' participation in these activities. The Guido-Padilla parties seek conditional certification of as class of "All current and former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for Defendant Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula from April 12, 2009 through Preliminary Approval and all current and former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for Defendants Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. from February 13, 2009 through Preliminary Approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person who performed work and/or suffered violations of any law occurring while such person was in the employ of either Manpower US Inc. and/or any Manpower franchise is not a Class Member." On March 4, 2016, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The motion was set for hearing on May 19, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. On May 16, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation which stated that they had "reached a settlement in principle that would resolve the case." Plaintiffs subsequently filed the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on June 9, 2016. This motion included copies of the proposed Notice and Settlement Agreement. The motion for class certification was denied as moot, and the class certification hearing was vacated. After reviewing the motion for preliminary approval, the Court issued an order on September 1, 2016 which asked the parties to address questions about the Settlement Agreement, proposed Notice, and objection procedure. The parties filed a response to the Court's order on September 6, 2016. Judge Koh noted that the Guido-Padilla case is not the only putative, wage and hour class action that has been filed against a Manpower entity. There are at least nine other cases in federal and state courts in California alone. Many of these cases involve the same defendants, the same or substantially similar claims, and overlapping class periods. Those nine cases are Ramirez I, Ramirez II, Willner I, Willner II, Stimpson, Sanchez, Rico, Zemudio, or Martinez. The Court observed that none of the nine cases are discussed in any detail in the Settlement Agreement or proposed Notice of the Guido-Padilla case. According to Judge Koh, the failure of the proposed Notice to mention the foregoing cases is magnified by the scope of the Release specifically in Paragraph 39 of the Settlement Agreement holding that the Release applies to "any and all related claims," which includes violations of numerous sections of the California Labor Code, all Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, and any other related claim that is "known or unknown, contingent or accrued, statutory or common law." The Settlement Agreement includes a Release that provides that "Plaintiffs and Class Members fully release and discharge Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, predecessor or successor, and all agents, employees, officers, directors, insurers, and attorneys therefor from any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorney fees, penalties, damages, action or causes of action contingent or accrued for, or which relate to or arise out of the allegations and claims asserted in the operative complaint in the Action and any and all related claims." Judge Koh noted that the Preliminary Approval Hearing that there appears to be some tension between the Class definition and the Release, which could create confusion for Class Members. The parties also have filed a proposed objection form. This objection form directs Class Members to either (1) mail their objections to the Settlement Administrator, or (2) file their objections to any district court in the Northern District of California in person. According to Judge Koh, there are several issues with this procedure. First, this procedure does not conform to the procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which only requires the mailing of objections to the Settlement Administrator and does not provide any other method for lodging objections. Second, the procedure could result in confusion: it sets forth two different avenues to object (mail or file) to two different institutions (the Settlement Administrator and the U.S. District Court). Third, some Class Members may not know how to file a document with the Court, as the procedures for doing so can be complex. Judge Koh said the parties must modify the proposed Notice to conform to the Settlement Agreement, which requires only the mailing of objections to the Settlement Administrator. The Court also raised other issues at the Preliminary Approval Hearing. For instance, in the parties' amended motion for preliminary approval, the parties will provide legal authority on how the proposed class satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Specifically, Rule 23(b)(3) requires a court to find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members" before certifying a monetary damages class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). In addition, the parties have indicated that they will change the cy pres recipient, from the Interdisciplinary Center for Healthy Workplaces to the California Department of Industrial Relations. The parties are directed to make conforming changes to the amended Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice. The Court directed the parties to make conforming changes to the amended Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice and submit amended Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice, by October 6, 2016. METHOD PRODUCTS: "Richman" Sues Over Product Mislabelling --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Richman and Ashley Peluchette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Method Products, PBC, a Delaware public benefit corporation, and People Against Dirty, PBC, a Delaware public benefit corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.3:16-cv-05167 (N.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from making any "natural" and/or "naturally-derived" claims, seeks full restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, actual damages, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Fraudulent Prong of Unfair Competition Law, Unfair Prong of Unfair Competition Law, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Method Products is a public benefit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 637 Commercial Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94111. It manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises and sells "Method Products" throughout the nation. It claims to be "Natural" and/or "Naturally Derived" despite containing unnatural ingredients that are artificial, synthetic, and/or highly processed. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP 2201 Market St., Suite H San Francisco, CA 94114 Tel: (415) 324-8620 Fax: (415) 520-2262 Email: blopatin@ELPlawyers.com MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court to Hear X-Box Case This Fall ---------------------------------------------------------- Princess G. Manasseh, writing for University of Miami, reports that a case before the U.S. Supreme Court could impact how companies decide which products to sell and whether product liability is financially worth the risk. This fall the high court will be considering Microsoft v. Baker to decide if a technical shortcut in the law that makes it easier to bring class action lawsuits against big companies is a legitimate loophole. It is called voluntary dismissal of a claim with prejudice. By doing this, the plaintiff in a lawsuit can force an appeals court to reconsider a case. That is what lawyers in the state of Washington successfully did in 2011 and it has become the source of great controversy ever since -- controversy that will be settled by the Supreme Court this fall. Sergio Campos, professor of law in the University of Miami School of Law, explored this issue with faculty and students September 14 at the first "Cert Talk," a new legal series launched at Miami Law examining cases granted a writ of certiorari, or cases going before the Supreme Court. Known to some as "the Xbox case," Microsoft v. Baker began in 2007 (then Baker v. Microsoft) as five separate lawsuits against Microsoft for damaged game discs allegedly caused by their consoles. Nine years later, the case has grown much larger. A major question the country's highest court will be settling is if a party can even bring a claim in a class action suit in the absence of a recognized class of individuals harmed. This is known legally as "standing." At first blush the right to bring a class action claim forward without a class may seem like an obvious "no," but the question goes a lot deeper. "Cert Talks are an opportunity for faculty members to stay abreast of some of the most newsworthy cases granted certiorari by the Supreme Court," explained Osamudia James, vice dean and professor of law at University of Miami School of Law. A Cert Talk is delivered by law school faculty whose area of expertise is at the crux of the case before the Supreme Court. In the case of Microsoft v. Baker, Campos, whose expertise lies in civil procedure and class actions, co-wrote an amicus brief for the respondent in the case. "The outcome will likely go one of three ways," said Campos. In its decision, the court could take a strict property view and find that there is no standing, a view closely associated with the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Campos considers this an unlikely outcome for the court to take, largely because of Scalia's absence from the bench. A second possibility is that the court will find there is standing based on prior precedent from two 1980 Supreme Court cases -- Closest Guaranty National Bank v. Roper and United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty. Campos told the lunchtime crowd of law faculty and students that this is the most likely outcome. The most exciting outcome in Campos' view, however, would be one where the court looks at the standing issue not through the view of precedent or property, but instead in terms of the function of the class action. "In small claims, class actions are often necessary because no class member has a stake sufficient enough to bring an individual lawsuit," said Campos. This can be easily understood by considering that Baker's original claim for the damaged disc was around $30 and the Federal Court filing fee is $400. These lawsuits are possible, then, by empowering one individual class member to be the representative and forcing the sharing of common costs. In considering this, the court could go back to a traditional view of the standing doctrine -- that standing is a requirement to ensure there is adequate representation of all the interests that are implicated by the litigation. Campos believes that if the court really takes seriously what the class action does, it could allow appeals by this procedure because it serves to incentivize people to develop arguments and facts in litigation. It also ensures that the absent class members will be adequately represented. As technical as this issue is, the ramifications of the decision for the broader public could be dramatic. "How the court decides this issue will have an enormous impact," said Campos, such as "whether more or less defective products get made and whether certain products get introduced to the market at all." MISONIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Misonix, Inc. (NASDAQ:MSON) between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Eastern District of New York. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/pslra/misonix-inc or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that 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. On September 14, 2016, Misonix revealed that the company would delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2016 due to "deficiencies [that] existed in the Company's internal control over financial reporting at June 30, 2016." Misonix further announced that the company's Audit Committee was conducting an investigation related to the deficiencies. On this news, Misonix stock fell over 18%, to close at $5.00 per share on September 15, 2016. 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. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Randstad Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., Timothy T. Yates, Jeffrey F. Rayport, Gillian Munson, Roberto Tunioli, John R. Gaulding, James P. McCeigh, Randstad North America, Inc., and Merlin Global Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 12746 (Del. Ch. Ct., September 14, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Monster Worldwide Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition announced on August 9, 2016, pursuant to which Randstad North America, Inc. will acquire the outstanding shares of Monster in a deal valued at approximately $429 million, with each Monster stockholder receiving $3.40 per share in cash upon consummation of the merger. Monster Worldwide Inc. is a global online employment solutions company incorporated in Delaware with its principal offices located in New York, New York. Randstad North America, Inc. provides temporary, temporary-to-hire and permanent placement services each week to over 100,000 people through its network of more than 900 branches and client-dedicated locations. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Banko, Esq. Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 Facsimile: (302) 482-3612 E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com dfarrell@faruqilaw.com mvangorder@faruqilaw.com MOSAIC NEW WALES: Faces Class Action Over Wasterwater Spill ----------------------------------------------------------- Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that residents living near fertilizer giant Mosaic's New Wales, Florida phosphate processing plant claim in a federal class action that a "toxic radioactive wastewater" spill from the facility earlier this month has contaminated their water. Mosaic announced the spill on September 11 -- two weeks after company officials noticed a sinkhole opened up under a pool of acidic wastewater called a gypsum stack. This water -- a cocktail of chemicals and minerals with low levels of radiation -- is created during Mosaic's processing of phosphate into fertilizer. The sinkhole, 45-feet-wide and of a still unknown depth, swallowed an estimated 215 million gallons of the wastewater. The company confirmed the wastewater reached the Florida aquifer, the state's main source of drinking water. About 5,000 residents live within five miles of the processing plant -- the largest in the world -- and a majority of households use private wells. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Mosaic hired a third-party to perform tests on wells in the area. So far, tests on 52 wells near Mosaic's processing plant have not found any contaminants, according to Mosaic and Florida's DEP. "We immediately took steps to remove as much water from the leaking process pond as possible, and are now operating a recovery well to remove the rest of the water from the aquifer," said Walt Precourt, Mosaic's Senior Vice President of Phosphates, in a statement. "Based on extensive monitoring data, no water from the stack has migrated off our property." "Our Mosaic team continues to work around the clock to review the situation, and our response to it," he continued. "We continue to analyze the situation, and our response to it, and we realize we could have done a better job in providing timely information to our neighbors and the broader community." But attorney Frank Petosa of the Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, which is representing the class, said residents are unsure if the testing results are reliable. "There needs to be frequent monitoring and testing of wells in the surrounding community," he said. "Taking one test, one time is not sufficient." The Florida DEP is not yet commenting on possible fines related to the sinkhole spill. "While there continues to be no evidence of offsite movement or threat to offsite groundwater supplies, DEP will continue to ensure Mosaic's efforts properly resolve this issue," said DEP Secretary Jon Steverson in a statement. "Once the issues surrounding this sinkhole are resolved, DEP will finalize its ongoing investigation to determine any necessary accountability measures to ensure this doesn't happen again." Mosaic has a history of environmental problems near its mines and processing plants. Last year, the company reached a nearly $2 billion settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for improper storage of billons of gallons of hazardous waste. The settlement is the largest of its kind. This sinkhole is also not the first to open up at the New Wales processing plant. In 1994, a 120-foot-wide sinkhole spilled contaminated water into the Florida aquifer. More recently, in 2009, a sinkhole at a processing plant in north Florida spilled several million gallons of wastewater. "They would not be considered a good neighbor to the residents around the plant," Petosa said. Earlier this year, Mosaic announced plans to expand mining operations in three Florida counties. "Enough is enough," said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Florida must finally take a stand against this destructive, radioactive phosphate mining that is putting our health and environment at risk." Even Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton commented on the incident while campaigning in the state this week. "For goodness sake, people are entitled to clean water," Clinton told a local TV station, before releasing a transcript of her comments to the public. "People are entitled to know what is in their water and companies that profit off of common resources need to be held liable when something goes wrong. So I have a very clear view about this: polluters should pay to clean up the messes that they have created." The class wants Mosaic to pay for independent water testing within a five-mile radius of the sinkhole and any property damage related to the spill. They are also seeking unspecified damages. MURRAY DARLING: Murray River Stakeholders Mull Class Suit vs Firm ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tahlia McPherson, writing for The Courier, reports that the Corowa Caravan Park succumbed to water late on September 19, but its owners have vowed to "come back". "We did our best, but the Murray River beat us this time," manager Julie Bartlett said. Park owners Sheryl and Don Ayres watched, alongside 85 annual site holders, as the water rose to cause an estimated $100,000 in damages. It had been a physical, mental and emotional struggle for three weeks against the flood. About 60 volunteers, 2000 sandbags and seven water pumps weren't enough to fend off the mighty Murray. "There were certainly a lot of tears around the table last night - - we will come back, but it will take a lot of hard work and it will be expensive," Mrs. Bartlett said. The park was one of three in Corowa at risk of flooding and will remain closed indefinitely. Mrs. Bartlett said it was "unbelievable" how quickly the water came in. "There are probably still 40 or so vans down there and about 90 per cent of the park is affected," she said. The site was given evacuation orders at 2pm September 15 and told to be out of the park by 6pm September 16. Water was predicted to reach 6.7 metres on September 17, but didn't hit the mark. "In the end, the water didn't rise until September 19, which is a pity because people could have come up on the weekend to get their vans," Mrs Bartlett said. "We've had one of wettest winters I can remember, eight weeks ago, the Murray at Corowa was really low, they just stored and stored until they had no choice." A further 40 millimetres of rain has been predicted for September 21. Miscommunication, rapid water rises and water mismanagement were talking points around Corowa on September 20. Several caravan owners, business people and residents spoke of class action. Murray River Action Group chairman Richard Sargood said water operators from Canberra had committed to a post-flood meeting in the region. "We will be asking them to justify why there were minimum 600megalitres/day releases on one day, then seven days later they were releasing 45,000," he said. "It hasn't happened for 20 years and the management hasn't gotten any better. "I have heard class action mentioned, there's a number of people suggesting a similar thing . . . with significant rain predicted. "It makes you wonder why they dropped releases (on September 19 and September 20)." MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Ohio Woman Sue Over EpiPen Price Hike ------------------------------------------------------------ Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that an Ohio woman on Sept. 6 filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc in an Ohio county court, claiming sharp price hikes for the company's EpiPen device violated the state's consumer protection law. Mylan has raised the U.S. price of the EpiPen, which is used to treat life-threatening allergies, from less than $100 when it acquired the product in 2007 to more than $600, drawing criticism from parents, consumer groups and U.S. politicians. New York's attorney general said on Sept. 6 he is investigating whether Mylan violated antitrust laws in its contracts to provide EpiPens to some school systems. NANTKWEST INC: "Hare" Securities Suit Removed to Cal. Dist. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HARE and NORMAN JACOBS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NANTKWEST, INC., PATRICK SOONSHIONG, BARRY J. SIMON, RICHARD GOMBERG, STEVE GORLIN, MICHAEL D. BLASZYK, HENRY JI, RICHARD KUSSEROW, JOHN T. POTTS, JR., ROBERT ROSEN, JOHN C. THOMAS, JR., CAMBRIDGE EQUITIES L.P., MP 13 VENTURES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., JEFFERIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., MLV & CO. LLC, DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06697, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. NANTKWEST, INC. -- http://nantkwest.com/-- is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. STULL STULL AND BRODY 9430 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (212) 687-7230 Fax: (212) 490-2022 - and - Shimon Yiftach, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ AND GROSSMAN LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Email: info@bgandg.com Phone: 212-697-6484 Fax: 212-697-7296 BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 144 North Beverwyck Road Lake, Suite 187 Hiawatha, NJ 07034 Phone: 973-335-6409 Fax: 973-335-3717 Email: info@bgandg.com shimon@bgandg.com The Defendants are represented by: Jordan Eth, Esq. Philip T. Besirof, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone: 415.268.7000 Fax: 415.268.7522 E-mail: JEth@mofo.com PBesirof@mofo.com NATERA INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Cahoj" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Natera, Inc.; Matthew Rabinowitz; Jonathan Sheena; Herm Rosenman; Roelof F. Botha; Todd Cozzens; Edward C. Driscoll, Jr.; James I. Healy; and John Steuart filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mika Cahoj v. Natera, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01512-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case was originally filed on March 10, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, Case No. CIV537717, seeking to recover damages under the Securities Act, in connection with purchase of stock. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and omitted material information that was required to be disclosed. The Defendants subsequently removed the Case from the Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 28, 2016. The District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01512-HSG to the proceeding. The appellate case is captioned as MIKA CAHOJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NATERA, INC.; MATTHEW RABINOWITZ; JONATHAN SHEENA; HERM ROSENMAN; ROELOF F. BOTHA; TODD COZZENS; EDWARD C. DRISCOLL, Jr.; JAMES I. HEALY; JOHN STEUART, Defendants-Appellants, and SEQUOIA CAPITAL XII, LP; SC XII MANAGEMENT, LLC; LIGHTSPEED VENTURE PARTNERS VIII, LP; LIGHTSPEED ULTIMATE GENERAL PARTNER VIII LTD; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INC.; WEDBUSH SECURITIES, INC., Case No. 16-16577, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be served and filed on December 16, 2016; -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record must be served and filed on January 17, 2017; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief must be filed and served within 14 days of service of the appellee's brief. NAT'L FOOTBALL: EA Asks Judge to Bar Players' Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Electronic Arts returned to federal court over its Madden NFL video game, this time asking a federal judge to bar retired NFL players from moving forward with a right-of-publicity class action. "The plaintiffs are asking what no federal court has ever done, which is to certify a nationwide right-of-publicity class action," EA attorney R. James Slaughter said at a motion to certify hearing on September 22. "This court shouldn't be the first." Michael Davis, Vince Ferragamo and Billy Joe Dupree sued EA in 2010 on behalf of 6,000 retired NFL players, objecting to the use of avatars that closely resembled them in "Madden 2009" -- a game that allowed players to pit "historical teams" against one another. For instance, the game includes a 1979 Los Angeles Rams team, for which Ferragamo played quarterback. The game depicts the Rams' quarterback as an avatar with identical characteristics to Ferragamo -- 26 years old, 6 feet 3 inches tall, and weighing 207 pounds. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg refused to dismiss the case in 2012, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed his ruling last year. On September 22, lawyers battled over whether Seeborg should certify a nationwide class based on California's right-of- publicity laws. Brian Henri, who represents the athletes, argued as a matter of course that the class should be certified in the Northern District, where EA maintains its legal and business affairs departments and made its player-licensing decisions. "You say that as if it's a given," Seeborg said, skeptical that a game that is made and sold nationwide should be subject to one state's jurisdiction. "If you're selling the game in other parts of the country, where is the wrong occurring?" he asked. "The last event that triggered liability would be the place of the wrong. That would be the publication -- which occurred in California," Henri said. "Where conduct emanated from California and the defendant is a California corporation, that is sufficient to say California laws should apply." Not so, EA attorney Slaughter said. "The last event that's occurring is the sale," he argued. "It's not the intention to violate a right, it's whether that right was actually violated. It's the actual use, not the intention to make a use, and the only evidence before the court is that the game was designed in Florida and manufactured and sold throughout the United States." Slaughter also said that the class shouldn't be certified because its members aren't ascertainable. "They need to figure out a way to ascertain who is in the class and they haven't done that," he told Seeborg. "No matter what law applies, identifiability is a core element of a right-of-publicity claim and the plaintiffs must prove that each avatar in the game is readily identifiable as a plaintiff." Seeborg brought up EA's consumer survey, noting that users didn't seem to be able to recognize the avatars as certain players. "If you don't know who Vince Ferragamo is, it doesn't much matter if you can identify him in a game," he said. "Let's say there's a class member that nobody cares about and is a poor soul with no fans. How is that person a class member?" Henri said it doesn't matter whether avatars are immediately recognizable to gamers, and that EA's own databases can be used to accurately identify the players, famous or not. Besides, he added, "It's very clear they misappropriated the commercial interest of the class members in their video games." Seeborg didn't indicate how or when he'd rule on the matter. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weber" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Avrom Weber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-05106 (E.D.N.Y., September 14, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Nationwide Credit, Inc. operates a debt collection firm in New York. Avrom Weber is a pro se plaintiff. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Revives Data Breach Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Helene N. White of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of complaints in the case captioned, MOHAMMAD S. GALARIA (15-3386); ANTHONY HANCOX (15-3387), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 15-3386, 15-3387 (6th Cir.). The Sixth Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings. Plaintiffs Mohammad Galaria and Anthony Hancox brought putative class actions after hackers breached the computer network of Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and stole their personal information. In their complaints, Plaintiffs allege claims for invasion of privacy, negligence, bailment, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff Hancox filed a five-count putative class-action complaint against Nationwide in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, and Plaintiff Galaria filed essentially the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio a month later. The Kansas district court transferred Hancox's action to the Ohio district court, which designated the dockets as related. In Counts I and II of the complaints, Plaintiffs allege that Nationwide willfully and negligently violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Pub. L. No. 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114 (1970) (codified at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681), by failing to adopt required procedures to protect against wrongful dissemination of Plaintiffs' data. In Counts III, IV, and V, Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, and bailment, which also arose out of Nationwide's failure to secure Plaintiffs' data against a breach. The complaints seek damages for, among other things, the increased risk of fraud; expenses incurred in mitigating risk, including the cost of credit freezes, insurance, monitoring, and other mitigation products; and time spent on mitigation efforts. Defendants moved to dismiss the action which the district court granted concluding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy, lacked Article III standing to bring the negligence and bailment claims, and lacked statutory standing to bring the FCRA claims. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and leave to amend, asserting that the district court erred in dismissing one of their FCRA claims. Plaintiffs did not seek reconsideration of the other four dismissed claims, which were omitted from the proposed amended complaint, but maintained their right to appeal the dismissals. The district court denied reconsideration and leave to amend, concluding that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a clear error of law, and that the proposed amendment would not cure any deficiencies in the FCRA claim in any event. In the consolidated appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of the negligence, bailment, and FCRA claims and the denial of their motions for reconsideration and leave to amend. Plaintiffs do not appeal the dismissal of their invasion-of-privacy claim. Nationwide argues that the dismissal of the negligence and bailment claims should be affirmed on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to state claims for relief. In the Order dated September 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/hoJfIZ available at Leagle.com, Judge White concluded that Plaintiffs have Article III standing and that the district court erred in dismissing the FCRA claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder disagreed with the majority's conclusion, holding that the plaintiffs have not satisfied the fundamental requirement of federal court jurisdiction. There is no allegation of fact in either complaint that makes plausible the notion that Nationwide is at all responsible for the criminal acts that increased the plaintiffs' risk of identity theft. NETFLIX INC: Faces Potential Shareholders Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Longwell, writing for VideoInk, reports that San Diego law firm Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP announced on Sept. 7, 2016, that it is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against Netflix on behalf of current and former shareholders over alleged false and misleading business information issued by the streaming service's executive officers. In an email to VideoInk, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP CEO Jeffrey R. Krinsk said that the potential suit would involve Netflix shareholders who purchased stock in Q3 2014. Netflix finished the quarter with 37.2M subscribers in the U.S. and 15.84M internationally, falling below the 37.6M and 16.16M, respectively, it projected. A day after the numbers were announced, the value of Netflix shares dropped nearly 20%. "We intend to reinforce the factual allegations and hope to hear from potential class members which allows us to detail the conduct we allege was improper to that person/business," said Krinsk in his email. Netflix did not respond to a request for comment. In recent months, Finkelstein & Krinsk has been involved in class action suits against brokerage giant Charles Schwab, Volkswagen and Chobani yogurt. In 2013, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in San Francisco dismissed a shareholder lawsuit against Netflix alleging that the company had misled them about pricing trends and the profitability of its streaming and DVD services as it prepared to spin them off into two separate businesses. Netflix's share price fell 76% between July and October 2011, when the announced spinoff was aborted. NEW MEXICO: Court Dismissed Inmates' Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Albuquerque, dismissed an inmates' class action accusing the New Mexico state prison in Farmington of medical negligence and Americans with Disabilities Act violations. U.S. District Judge James Browning found the 26 former inmates of the San Juan County Detention Center failed to state claims that could be granted under the ADA or New Mexico tort law, including negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also agreed with the county's immunity defense. The inmates alleged five types of common injury: denial of necessary prescription medication; denial of access to medical professionals or outside medical facilities; refusal to transport them to a hospital or emergency room for life-threatening conditions; injuries inflicted on them by prison staff; and forced consumption of unprescribed prescription medication. Browning's Sept. 20 Opinion and Order disposed of all claims under the ADA and the New Mexico Tort claims Act. He set an Oct. 3 hearing on remaining motions. The cases are: OLGA SALAZAR, Personal Representative of the Estate of JESUS MARQUEZ, Plaintiff, vs. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC"), SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF SJCDC, DR. ERIC KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, KATIE (Unknown Surname), RN, Defendants, No. CIV 15-0417 JB/LF (D.N.M.), consolidated with JESSE BURKEE, EARL CALLAHAN, LARIET CHARLES, GORDON DOUGLAS DERRICK, AARON EATON, CALVIN FINCH, PAUL GOULD, JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, MARK HINOJOS, THOMAS KNIGHT, AURELIO MARQUEZ, ANGELO MARTINEZ, MARK MARTINEZ, RUDY MARTINEZ, VICTORIA MARTINEZ, PAUL MATAMOROS, RICHARD MCDONALD, DEBBIE NEZ, DAVID PAGE, STEVE PARRISH, CLIFFORD ROGERS, ADAM SCHUESSLER, JASON TRUJILLO, FRANKLIN TSO, STEVE VALERIO, JIMMY WEAHKEE and HARRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, vs. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC") SAN JUAN COUNTY, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC. ("CHC"), SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL SERVICES ("PRESBYTERIAN"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR, SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants, No. CIV 15-0439 JB/LF (D.N.M.), consolidated with CHARLES CARTER, Personal Representative of the Estate of WILLIAM "BILLY" CARTER, Plaintiff, vs. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC"), SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF SJCDC, DR. ERIC KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, No. CIV 15-0497 JB/LF(D.N.M), consolidated with COREY JONES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Sharon Jones Plaintiff, vs. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC"), SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF SJCDC, DR. ERIC KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, No. CIV 15-0526 JB/LF (D.N.M.). NIANTIC INC: Third Class Action Filed in California --------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announced on Sept. 6 that a third class action lawsuit has been filed against Niantic, Inc., The Pokemon Company, and Nintendo Co. Ltd. Niantic, a software development company, is the developer and publisher of the Pokemon Go mobile game. Pokemon Co. is responsible for marketing and licensing the Pokemon franchise. Nintendo is the publisher of the popular Pokemon video game series and owns a 32% stake in Defendant Pokemon Co. Each of the three defendants receives a percentage of all revenues generated by the Pokemon Go mobile application. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-04556, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons whose use and enjoyment of their property has been affected by the Pokemon Go mobile game. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number. Pokemon Go is the latest iteration of the immensely popular Pokemon media franchise, which consists in large part of a series of video games in which players take on the role of "trainers" with the goal of capturing and collecting fantasy creatures called Pokemon. Released on July 6, 2016 in the United States, Pokemon Go is an "augmented reality" game in which players use their smart phones to "catch" Pokemon in the players' real-world surroundings by utilizing the GPS, camera, and gyroscope features on users' mobile devices. When the game detects, via GPS, that players are in the vicinity of certain real-world locations, the GPS coordinates of which were selected and programmed into the mobile application by Niantic and known to Pokemon Go players as "Pokestops" and "Pokemon gyms," the players gain access to potentially vital in-game items, which they can use to catch Pokemon, among other purposes, or gain the opportunity to engage in virtual "battles" with other Pokemon Go players. Pokemon Go was an immediate success. In the two months since its release, Pokemon Go has been downloaded more than 30 million times and earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. However, within days of the game's release, it became clear that a number of the GPS coordinates that Niantic had designated as Pokestops and Pokemon gyms were, in fact, on or directly adjacent to private property, and that Niantic had placed these Pokestops and Pokemon gyms without the consent of the properties' owners. As a direct result of Defendants' actions, Pokemon Go players have repeatedly trespassed on and damaged private property. The intentional, unauthorized placement of Pokestops and Pokemon gyms on or near the property of Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class constitutes a continuing invasion of the class members' use and enjoyment of their properties, committed by Niantic on an ongoing basis for Defendants' profit. "Defendants recklessly developed and marketed a product without properly considering its impact on private homeowners, depriving them of their right to enjoy their property without nuisance. The Pokemon Company, Nintendo, and Niantic failed to realize that their virtual game has very real-world consequences," said Jeremy A. Lieberman, attorney for the plaintiffs. NORTHWELL HEALTH: Oct. 3 Prelim. Conference in "Park" Suit Set -------------------------------------------------------------- A preliminary conference is scheduled for October 3, 2016 in the class action captioned FRANKLIN PARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. f/k/a North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc. Defendant, INDEX NO. 700757/2016 (N.Y. Sup., County of Queens, January 21, 2016). The action seeks to hold Defendant liable for alleged unpaid earned wages due to Plaintiff Franklin Park and other similarly situated paramedics and emergency medical technicians in violation of relevant sections of the New York Labor Law and the New York Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Northwell Health, Inc. operates hospitals that provide healthcare services to patients and their families in the metro New York area and beyond. The Plaintiff is represented by: LAW OFFICE OF ETHAN A. BRECHER, LLC 600 Third Avenue, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (646) 571-2440 Fax: (888) 821-0246 OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Kirchner" Class Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation. The case is captioned George Kirchner, Eileen Kirchner, Blossom Jones, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-23950-UU (S.D. Fla., September 14, 2016). The Defendants own and operate a company that provides residential and commercial mortgage loan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. Suntrust International Center 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com OFFICE DEPOT: Court OKs Final Certification of "Rivet" FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William J. Martini entered an opinion in the lawsuit entitled KYLE RIVET, JEREMIAH HARRIET, AMANDA NOHRENBERG, BRENT KAUFMAN, and RON BELL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Case No. Civ. No. 2:12- 02992 (WJM) (D.N.J.): -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final certification of the collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; -- denying Office Depot's motion for decertification; -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the State Law Classes; and -- granting the motion for class certification as to the Colorado, Maryland, and Washington Classes, but denying without prejudice as to the Oregon Class. The Plaintiffs in the case worked as Assistant Store Managers for Office Depot during a period ranging from early 2000 to July 2013. Seeking to bring claims on behalf of themselves and other ASMs, they allege that Office Depot's method for paying overtime violated state and federal wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs moved for final certification of a collective action that alleges violations of the FLSA. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs also moved for certification of four proposed classes (collectively, "the State Law Classes") that allege violations of state wage and hour laws. Office Depot opposes both motions, while also moving to decertify the FLSA conditional collective action. The Court appoints the firms Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Berger & Montague, P.C., Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, and Locks Law Firm as class counsel with respect to the Colorado, Maryland, and Washington Classes. Appointment of class counsel for the Oregon Class would be premature because the class has not been certified, Judge Martini wrote. A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/gd8LHh from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs Kyle Rivet, Constance Gibbons, Linda McQueen, Corey Rivers, Monte Enyeart, Chris Simmons, Cesar Ocampo, Theresa Albro, Eugene Anderson, Bryan Duvall, Jeremy Pritchett, Justin Pritchett, George Fisher, Detective Don Nelson, Brenda Hinote, Sheila Davies, Brent Kaufman, Ron Bell, Amanda Nohrenberg, Terry Parker and Jeremiah Harriet are represented by: Alexandra Koropey Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3063 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: apiazza@bm.net - and - Michael Hayden Reed, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN AND LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: michael.reed@klafterolsen.com Plaintiffs Kyle Rivet, Constance Gibbons, Brent Kaufman, Ron Bell, Amanda Nohrenberg and Jeremiah Harriet are represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN AND LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com Plaintiff Terry Parker is represented by: Andrew P. Bell, Esq. Michael A. Galpern, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC 801 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 663-8200 Facsimile: (856) 823-1551 E-mail: abell@lockslaw.com mgalpern@lockslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Jean Hale, Esq. Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq. August W. Heckman, III, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Ave. New York, NY 10178-0060 Telephone: (212) 309-6878 Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 E-mail: ashley.hale@morganlewis.com richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com august.heckman@morganlewis.com OMEGA EMPIRE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ JESUS BARAHONA RODRIGUEZ, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff (s), v. OMEGA EMPIRE, LLC, DUO EPSILON INC., d/b/a EAT GREEK SOUVLAKI, STAVROS DIMOTAKIS, and VASSILIOS DIMOTAKIS, a/k/a/ BILLY DIMOTAKIS and JENNY SKORDILIS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23991-MGC (S.D. Fla., September 16, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. OMEGA EMPIRE, LLC, and DUO EPSILON INC., are Greek restaurants doing business under the name of EAT GREEK SOUVLAKI. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ONEIDA TRIBE: 7th Cir. Affirms Immunity Ruling ---------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed a district court's ruling that the defendant, an Indian tribe, was immune from suit under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA). The appellate case is captioned, JEREMY MEYERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-312 7 (7th Cir.). Between February 6 and 17, 2015, Plaintiff Jeremy Meyers used his credit card to make purchases at the Oneida Travel Center and two Oneida One Stop retail locations in and around Green Bay, Wisconsin. All three stores are owned and operated by a federally- recognized Indian tribe, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. At each store he received electronically printed receipts that included more than the last five digits of his credit card as well as the card's expiration date. He alleges that the Tribe issued these receipts in violation of FACTA. Meyers sued the Oneida Tribe for these alleged violations of FACTA and brought a putative class action on behalf of all credit and debit card holders who, after June 3, 2008, received from the Oneida Tribe, an electronically printed receipt that displayed more than the last five digits of the person's credit or debit card or displayed the card's expiration date. The Oneida Tribe moved to dismiss Meyers' claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Tribe argued that Meyers' claims were barred under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and that Meyers had not suffered an "injury in fact" granting him standing under Article III of the Constitution. The district court subsequently concluded that the Tribe was immune from suit and granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed the claim because it could not find a clear, unequivocal statement in FACTA that Congress meant to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian Tribes. On appeal, Meyers argues that the district court dismissed his claim based on its erroneous conclusion that Indian tribes are not governments. In his Order dated September 8, 2016 available at https://is.gd/F18MAB from Leagle.com, Judge Rovner held that the lower court properly treated the Tribe's motion to dismiss because the Congress did not specifically list Indian tribes in FACTA definition of "person." As the court described it in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Comty., 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030 (2014), the Indian tribes possess "common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers. Thus unless and until Congress acts, the tribes retain their historic sovereign authority". This is true even for a tribe's commercial activities. Jeremy Meyers is represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. Esq. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is represented by Thomas M. Pyper, Esq. -- thomas.pyper@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL ONONDAGA: Jail Faces Class Suit Over Teen Solitary Confinement -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Lohmann, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that the practice of holding teenagers in solitary confinement at the Onondaga County Justice Center has become the subject of a class- action lawsuit filed by state civil rights groups alleging the punishment violates Constitutional rights and harms young minds. More than 80 teens, most of them of minority races, were held in solitary confinement at the Onondaga County Justice Center between October 2015 and August 2016, according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed on September 20 by the New York Civil Liberties Union and Legal Services of Central New York. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of six 17-year-olds, identified by their initials, currently incarcerated at the Justice Center, including in solitary confinement. The lawsuit alleges the teens are being placed at risk of serious harm to their physical and mental health. The suit said teens in such isolation entertain thoughts of suicide and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The lawsuit alleges the teens are held in isolation in "barren" cells that are 7 feet by 9 feet for 23 hours a day. While in the cells, adults imprisoned nearby "threaten to douse them in feces and urine and to sexually assault them." "You can't see anything but black walls closing in on you. It's like the cells are designed to make you act crazy," said Randy Pope, 16, who is not suing but spoke at a news conference on September 21 of his experience. "I tried doing crossword puzzles but kept thinking about killing myself." Pope said he was placed in "the box" for two days after a verbal argument over a basketball with another inmate. Sgt. Jon Seeber at the sheriff's office declined to comment due to the pending litigation. The lawsuit names Conway, Justice Center Chief Custody Deputy Esteban Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Custody Deputy Kevin M. Brisso and the Syracuse City School District, which provides education to school-aged inmates at the jail. A school district spokesman said he was unaware of the lawsuit and declined immediate comment. The lawsuit also alleges one deputy played a game with teen inmates on the jail basketball court in which he sent inmates to isolation if they made a jump shot and guessed a number. Attorney Joshua Cotter of Legal Services of Central New York said this game happened more than once. The NYCLU declined to identify the deputy but staff said the story was corroborated by "multiple" inmates at the jail. A local organization, Alliance of Communities Transforming Syracuse, has been pushing for such a change for at least a year. It appeared that the practice might have ended when county leaders announced juvenile inmates would be transferred from the Jamesville Correctional Facility to the Justice Center. "But the celebration was premature," the lawsuit states. The NYCLU said 86 teens were placed in solitary confinement around 250 times between October 2015 and August 2016 at the Justice Center. The lawsuit said teens are locked inside the jail sometimes for "weeks and months on end." Luchele Chisunka, of ACTS, said the organization started hearing continued stories from teen inmates subject to solitary confinement in the winter of 2015 and found "data that confirmed eyewitness accounts." "This practice is particularly disturbing because almost all of the children are children of color," she said. The plaintiffs have spent between 30 and 115 days in isolation, according to the lawsuit. One teenage boy spent 400 days in isolation and one girl spent 102 days in isolation, according to the lawsuit. Samuel Young, director of advocacy at Legal Services CNY, said at the news conference that criminal justice practices and law in Onondaga County are particularly harmful for 16- and 17-year-olds accused of crimes. That's because New York hasn't raised the age for suspects capable of being tried as adults and because juvenile solitary confinement has continued. "Even the infamous Rikers Island has recognized that solitary confinement of juveniles must stop," Young said. "One of the only places in the country where a 16- or 17- year-old child can find themselves in a solitary confinement cell .... is in our very own Onondaga County Justice Center." The lawsuit states the jail has 30 to 40 "dimly lit" cells on two floors inside the jail. Pope and the lawsuit said the cells smell strongly of urine and feces, and "the dark green walls are marred by scratch marks from previous occupants," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit also said studies show how psychologically harmful the practice can be especially for young adults who will eventually be released from jail and return to society. The lawsuit asks for an injunction on the practice, for a declaration that juvenile solitary is unconstitutional and for reimbursement of associated costs. ORLY INTERNATIONAL: "Godinez" Suit Claims Violation of Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO GODINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. ORLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 633072 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, September 16, 2016), alleges that Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to compensate their non-exempt California employees for all overtime wage earned during the course of employment, failing to provide them accurately itemized wage statements, and failing to pay them all wages due and owing upon separation of employment in violation of the Labor Code. Orly International, Inc. provides nail care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq. Daniel F. Gaines, Esq. Alex P. Katofsky, Esq. Sepjdeh Ardestani, Esq. GAINES & GAINES, APLC 27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101 Calabasas, CA 91301 Phone: (818) 703-8985 Fax: (818) 703-8984 E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com daniel@gaineslawfinn.com alcx@gaineslawfinn.com sepideh@gaincslawtirm.com PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Miller Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC and Gainesville Coins, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Robert Miller, et al. v. Ira Bodenstein, Case No. 1:15-cv-04260, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Ira Bodenstein is the trustee of estate of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. The appellate case is captioned as Robert Miller, et al. v. Ira Bodenstein, Case No. 16-3425, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 20, 2016, the case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is one of the three bankruptcy appeals brought by two groups of former customers of the now defunct Peregrine Financial Group against its trustee, and appellee Ira Bodenstein. The dismissal of the first appeal forms the basis of the second appeal, which is the District Court Case, in which the customers argue that the Bankruptcy Court should have construed their class action claims as amended proofs of claim that relate back to their timely filed initial proofs of claim. The first appeal raises two primary issues -- (i) the appellants in that case challenge the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that their retail foreign exchange and OTC metal contracts were not commodity contracts, and (ii) they appeal the Bankruptcy Court's finding that their funds were not held in a resulting trust by Peregrine and, thus, were properly included in the bankruptcy estate. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 24, 2016, for Fargo 500 LLC, Gainesville Coins, Inc. and Robert Miller; and -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 27, 2016. Appellants ROBERT MILLER, FARGO 500 LLC and GAINESVILLE COINS, INC., on behalf of themselves and other persons and entities similarly situated, are represented by: Michael C. Moody, Esq. O'ROURKE & MOODY 55 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 849-2020 E-mail: mmoody@orourkeandmoody.com Appellee IRA BODENSTEIN, Trustee of estate of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., is represented by: Terence G. Banich, Esq. SHAW GUSSIS FISHMAN GLANTZ WOLFSON & TOWBIN LLC 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-0000 Telephone: (312) 980-3859 E-mail: tbanich@shawfishman.com PJ PIZZA: "Pedroza" Suit Seeks Reimbursement of Business Expense ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samson Pedroza, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. P.J. Pizza San Diego, LLC and PJ Pizza Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02330, (S.D, Fla., September 10, 2016), seeks disgorgement of profits garnered illegally, restitution under the California Business & Professions Code, permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, pre and post judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Wage and Hour Law. P.J. San Diego, LLC and PJ Pizza Holdings, LLC together own and operate approximately 25 or more Papa John's franchise stores in and around the San Diego area. It employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to its customers. Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 Email: paul@paulmcinnes.com - and - Ryan Thompson, Esq. WATTS GUERRA LLP 525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 220-8141 Facsimile: (424) 732-8190 Email: rthompson@wattsguerra.com rthompson@wattsguerra.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Tel: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 Email: markp@wpattorneys.com POP WARNER: Faces Concussion Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that even as lawsuits continue to pile on in Chicago federal courtrooms against colleges and universities over football-induced concussions, a new front in the legal scrimmage has opened, as plaintiffs have lined up to tackle youth football powerhouse Pop Warner over brain injuries allegedly suffered by young teen athletes. On Sept. 1, two women who alleged their sons suffered CTE, or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, from playing youth football, filed a potential class action lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court against Pop Warner Little Scholars Inc., the entity that oversees youth tackle football programs in 42 states and internationally. In Illinois, Pop Warner administers its Chicagoland conference, which includes more than two dozen teams from throughout Chicago, the suburbs and communities just outside of the metropolitan area. The league offers divisions, based on age and weight, for children ages 5-14, according to its website. Like other concussion trauma related lawsuits, the California lawsuit alleged Pop Warner misled parents and the public about the potential risk of brain injuries which could be suffered by those playing football. While Pop Warner boasted of its ability to reduce the risk of concussions and brain injury through its improved equipment and better playing techniques, the lawsuit said those statements were "false and misleading advertising" masking the real risks to young athletes. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs have requested the creation of a class of additional plaintiffs, including anyone who played Pop Warner youth football anywhere in the U.S. since 1997, and now suffer from brain injuries, and another class including the parents of those former youth football players. The lawsuit also includes as defendants the National Operating Committee on Standards Athletic Equipment (NOCSEA), which governs the safety of youth football playing equipment, and USA Football, the official youth football development partner of the National Football League. The lawsuit has asked the court to order NOCSEA to slap warning labels concerning the risk of brain injury on youth football equipment, to release youth football helmet safety standards and pay out unspecified damage awards, including punitive damages and attorney fees. The plaintiffs in the California action are represented by attorneys Thomas Girardi and Robert Finnerty, of the firm of Girardi & Keese, of Los Angeles. The action comes as professional and amateur football organizations of all kinds find themselves under a blitz of concussion-related legal actions. In Cook County, a judge in October 2015 tossed a potential class action brought against the Illinois High School Association, which oversees high school football and other athletics throughout Illinois. The judge in that case dismissed with prejudice the action brought against the IHSA in 2014, saying he supported the IHSA's safety record, and that he believed the best way to protect high school athletes was through the enactment of new laws, and not huge lawsuits. Some legal observers at the time said they believed the ruling would create a high bar for other similar legal actions against the IHSA, but could still leave the door open for other lawsuits against individual high schools. At the college level, Chicago federal court was chosen by a panel of federal judges as the jurisdiction in which the mounting number of cases concerning brain injuries suffered by college athletes would be heard. Early this year, a federal judge signed off on a $75 million settlement between a group of former college players, who alleged they had suffered brain injuries playing college football and other sports, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Under that settlement, the NCAA agreed to invest in a brain injury screening and evaluation program and to institute a range of other "corrective measures." The NCAA also pledged not to oppose $15 million in attorney fees and payments of $2,500-$5,000 to the former athletes who brought the lawsuit as named defendants. However, the settlement also did not foreclose on the possibility of future class action lawsuits against individual colleges and universities, or the athletic conferences in which their programs participate. And in the months since the settlement, about 15 such lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country, and transferred into Chicago. Cases now pending in the Northern District of Illinois include lawsuits against the Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 10 Conference, the PAC-12 Conference, the Western Athletic Conference and member schools including Duke University, Wake Forest University, Penn State University, Stanford University, Boston College and Brigham Young University, among others. Attorneys who have brought those actions include those from the firms of Edelson P.C., of Chicago, and Wilson Kehoe Winingham, of Indianapolis. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation selected U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee to handle the federal college concussion litigation cases. PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Transferred "Rosa" Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Clara G. Rosa, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Pressler & Pressler LLP and New Century Financial Services, Inc., Case No. BER L 005442 16, was transferred from the Superior Court of Bergen County to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-05570 to the proceeding. Pressler & Pressler LLP operates a law firm located at 7 Entin Rd, Parsippany, NJ 07054. New Century Financial Services, Inc. is a financial services firm headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Fred M. Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 70 Clinton Ave. Newark, NJ 07114 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com thezemellawfirm@optimum.net PLATINUM HOLDINGS: Faces "Addoms" Suit Over Debt Collection Acts ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO ADDOMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PLATINUM HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; PREMIUM ASSET SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06970-TJH-AJW (C.D. Cal., September 16, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices. Platinum Holdings Group, LLC -- http://www.platinumholdingsllc.com/-- operates in the debt collection industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Briana M. Kim, Esq. BRIANA KIM, PC 249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (714) 482-6301 Fax: (714) 482-6302 E-mail: briana@brianakim.com - and - Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 590-5550 Fax: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Dammann" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Andrea L. Dammann and May K. Yang filed an appeal from a court order dated August 8, 2016, and judgment dated August 9, 2016, in the lawsuit styled Andrea L. Dammann, et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 0:15-cv-03149-MJD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis. The lawsuit arose from insurance-related issues. The appellate case is captioned as Andrea L. Dammann, et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 16-3591, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before October 24, 2016; -- Appendix is due on November 1, 2016; -- Appellants' brief is due on November 1, 2016; -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of Appellant; and -- Appellants' reply brief is due 14 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the Appellee brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants Andrea L. Dammann and May K. Yang, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Rachel Ann Kitze Collins, Esq. Eric N. Linsk, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL 100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rakitzecollins@locklaw.com rnlinsk@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Charles Slane, Esq. TERRY & SLANE PLLC 7760 France Avenue, S., Suite 820 Bloomington, MN 55435 Telephone: (952) 820-4605 Defendant-Appellee Progressive Direct Insurance Company is represented by: Leah Chalmers Janus, Esq. Richard D. Snyder, Esq. Todd Alan Wind, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON PA 4000 Pillsbury Center 200 S. Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 E-mail: ljanus@fredlaw.com rsnyder@fredlaw.com twind@fredlaw.com PROPERTY TECHNICIANS: "Price" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Price, 5086 Co. Rd. 237, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338 And Shiloh Price, 5086 Co. Rd. 237, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338 And Mark Foust, 407 S. Delaware St. #A3, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338, And Shelly Foust 407 S. Delaware St. #E7, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338, On behalf of themselves and all others Similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jon R. Veard, 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052 And Property Technicians Incorporated dba United Property Management 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052, And Robbie Bellino, c/o Property Technicians Incorporated, 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052, And JRV Management LLC 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052 And Vinton Manor, LLC 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202 Lorain, Ohio 44052 And Fayette Manor LLC 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052, And 203 G. Woodwind, LLC, 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202 Lorain, Ohio 44052, And Lynchburg Properties, LLC, 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052, And Each of the Following Limited Partnerships, Located at 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202 Lorain, Ohio 44052, Veard-Lee Court Limited Partnership, Veard- Ashley Limited Partnership, Veard-Galion Limited Partnership, Veard-Jenna Terrace Limited Partnership, Veard-Jane Lew Limited Partnership, Veard-Antlers Limited Partnership, Veard-Ottawa Limited Partnership, Veard-McArthur Limited Partnership, Veard- Mineral Wells Limited Partnership, Veard-Foster Garden Limited Partnership, Veard-Preston Limited Partnership, Veard-Oberlin Limited Partnership, Veard-Wooster Limited Partnership, Veard- Hidden Creek Limited Partnership, Veard-Overlook Limited Partnership, Veard-Hurricane Limited Partnership, Veard-Masontown Phase II Limited Partnership, Veard-Cambridge Limited Partnership Wills Creek Associates Limited Partnership, Veard-Investments Limited Partnership, Valley View Associates Limited Partnership, College Village Associates Limited Partnership, Lakeview Estates Limited, Veard-Gassaway Limited Partnership, Veard-Portage Partners Limited Partnership, Raceland Meadows, LTD., Veard-Lima Limited Partnership, Veard-Park Meadow Limited, Riverbluff, LTD., Harding Development Company, Veard-Tulsa Limited Partnership, Veard-Irving Limited Partnership, Veard-Lake Jackson Limited Partnership, Veard Family Limited Partnership, Veard Baytown Limited Partnership, Veard-Vinton Limited Partnership, Veard-Oak Hill Limited Partnership, Attica Terrace Limited Partnership, Lynchburg Commons Limited Partnership, Veard-Dunkirk Limited Partnership, Veard-Gassaway Phase II, Veard-Westview Limited Partnership, Veard-Hartland Limited Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 1 16-cv-02310 (N.D. Ohio, September 16, 2016), was filed for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Property Technicians Incorporated is a full service residential property management company doing business as United Property Management. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sharon Cason-Adams, Esq. Roxi A. Liming, Esq. ADAMS & LIMING, L.L.C. Rivers Edge Corporate Center 1335 Dublin Road, Suite 104D Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 488-2015 Fax: (614) 488-2069 E-mail: sharon@adamsliming.com roxi@adamsliming.com PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Customer Sues Over Parmesan Cheese Fillers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Arnold, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that a Longwood man is suing Publix Super Markets Inc., saying its grated Parmesan cheese isn't all it claims to be. Eric Tamayo filed a lawsuit in U.S. District court on September 20 alleging that Publix's house brand "100 percent real grated Parmesan cheese" is loaded with fillers. The lawsuit says Tamayo submitted the cheese to laboratory testing and found the grated Parmesan and Romano Parmesan cheese contained "adulterants and fillers, including powdered cellulose." "Through these deceptive, misleading, and unfair business Publix has been able to command a price for the 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Products higher than a fair market price and to induce purchases that otherwise would have not occurred," the complaint says. It did not say exactly how much cellulose and other ingredients the laboratory testing found. Powdered cellulose is an anti- clumping agent made out of wood pulp and other plant fibers. Publix, however, has changed their bottles in recent months to remove the "100 percent real" wording. Parmesan cheese on the shelves at Publix on September 21 morning only said "Grated Parmesan Cheese" and leaves off the "100 percent real" wording. A spokesman for Publix said the company does not comment on pending litigation. A lawyer for Tamayo also declined to comment. The lawsuit said Tamayo made the purchases at Publix in 2016 and includes pictures of Publix Parmesan cheese with the "100 percent real grated Parmesan Cheese" wording. The lawsuit follows a handful of other lawsuits filed against Wal- Mart, Heinz and other makers of canisters of grated Parmesan cheese. In those cases, the lawsuits said the products contained 4 percent to 8 percent cellulose and other fillers. That stemmed from a Bloomberg News investigation into the alleged unnamed ingredients in grated Parmesan cheeses at various retailers. Target also was sued over its Parmesan cheese composition. Those cases have been consolidated and are still pending in federal court. In the Orlando case, Tamayo is petitioning the court for class- action status, saying that Publix was able to demand higher prices and garner more sales for its Parmesan by saying it was 100 percent cheese. The case is pending before U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell. PURE STORAGE: Faces "Wilson" Securities Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- CURTIS WILSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PURE STORAGE, INC., SCOTT DIETZEN, TIMOTHY RIITTERS, JOHN COLGROVE, MIKE SPEISER, ANEEL BHUSRI, MARK GARRETT ANITA M. SANDS, FRANK SLOOTMAN, MICHELANGELO VOLPI, GREYLOCK XIII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, GREYLOCK XIII PRINCIPALS LLC, GREYLOCK XIII-A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, GREYLOCK XIII GP LLC, SUTTER HILL VENTURES, REDPOINT ASSOCIATES IV, LLC, REDPOINT VENTURES IV, L.P., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C. and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 16CIV01406 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., September 15, 2016), is a securities class action brought on behalf of all those who purchased Pure Storage common stock in or traceable to Pure Storage's October 7, 2015 initial public stock offering, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Pure Storage is a California-based manufacturer and purveyor of all-flash data storage systems, predominately to mid-size and large enterprise customers. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Greylock XIII Limited Partnership, Greylock XIII-A Limited Partnership, their general partner Greylock XIII GP LLC, and Greylock XIII Principals LLC; Sutter Hill Ventures; and Redpoint Associates IV, LLC, and Redpoint Ventures IV, L.P., collectively owned more than 50% of the Company's outstanding shares prior to the IPO, giving them substantial control over Pure Storage. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Allen & Company LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Pacific Crest Securities (a division of KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.); Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated; Raymond James & Associates, Inc.; and Evercore Group LLC. are investment banking firms that acted as underwriters of the IPO, helping to draft and disseminate the IPO documents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shimon Yiftach, Esq. YIFTACH LAW FIRM 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 322-0322 Facsimile: (310) 971-9996 E-mail: shimon@yiftach1aw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com RAYMOURS FURNITURE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Arbitration Agreements ----------------------------------------------------------- John B. Lewis -- jlewis@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that amid contrary decisions by the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the Second Circuit followed its earlier precedent in Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., No. 15- 2820 (Sept. 2, 2016), enforcing an Employment Arbitration Program (EAP) that requires employees to submit their employment and compensation claims to individual arbitration. The EAP, however, permits employees to file charges and participate in investigations before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state or local anti-discrimination agencies, and did not compel employees to waive any rights they had under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or prevent employees from filing unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Case History A Raymours Furniture Company Inc. (Raymours) employee, Connie Patterson, filed a putative collective and class action raising claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York labor law. In response, Raymours moved to compel arbitration under the EAP. The district court granted the motion, holding that the class action waiver in the agreement was enforceable. Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., 96 F.Supp. 3d 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Patterson maintained that the EAP's prohibition of class or collective actions violated the employees' right to engage in "concerted activities" under the NLRA. See Section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. Sec 157. But the lower court rejected the assertion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) required arbitration of Patterson's claims because the plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate their claims based on the EAP's terms. The Appeal The issue on appeal was "whether the EAP's prohibition of class or collective adjudication of work-related claims illegally restricts employees' substantive rights under the NLRA and the Norris-La Guardia Act (NLGA) and is unenforceable under the FAA." The Second Circuit noted that the NLRB had previously determined that Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA prevent enforcement of arbitration agreements that prospectively waive an employee's right to pursue legal claims in any forum on a collective basis. See, e.g., D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184, 2012 WL 36274 (2012), and Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72, 2014 WL 546554 (2014). But, the NLRB's position had been rejected previously by both the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. See e.g., D.R. Horton v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB., 808 F.3d 1013, 1015 (5th Cir. 2015), and Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC v. NLRB, 824 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 2016), (these decisions have been the subject of blog articles here). As referenced, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have recently taken a different course, agreeing with the Board's position. See Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 13-16599, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), and Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016). (The Morris and Lewis opinions have been discussed in blog articles here.) The Second Circuit, however, found it was bound by precedent to follow its earlier decision in Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013), which "decline[d] to follow the [NLRB's] decision" in D.R. Horton "that a waiver of the right to pursue a FLSA claim collectively in any forum violates the [NLRA]." 726 F.3d at 297 n. 8. That said, the Court mused: "If we were writing on a clean slate we might well be persuaded, for the reasons forcefully stated in Chief Judge Wood's and Chief Judge Thomas's opinions in Lewis and Morris, to join the Seventh and Ninth Circuits and hold that the EAP's waiver of collective action is unenforceable." But, the Court was not writing on a clean slate and thus followed its Sutherland opinion, which "clearly presented" and "rejected [the] appellant's position." Indeed, in Sutherland the parties "extensively briefed their arguments under the NLRA and the NLGA, and the panel's rejection of those arguments was necessary to its judgment." That will remain the Court's position until overruled by an en banc panel or the Supreme Court. BOTTOM LINE: The Second Circuit's latest decision in Patterson simply underscores the Circuit split and the compelling need for decisive Supreme Court review. RC BIGELOW: Appeal Filed From N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Victor" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Adam Victor filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Adam Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Case No. 3:13- cv-02976-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court denied class certification in the Case, which is brought over food misbranding allegations challenging antioxidant claims for Bigelow's black tea. The appellate case is captioned as Adam Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Case No. 16-16639, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016; -- Transcript is due on November 15, 2016; -- Appellant Adam Victor's opening brief is due on December 27, 2016; -- Appellee R.C. Bigelow, Inc.'s answering brief is due on January 27, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant ADAM VICTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: J. Price Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN LAW FIRM 1100 Tyler Avenue Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 236-0047 Facsimile: (662) 513-0072 E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net - and - Ben (Pierce) F. Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 369-0800 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com Defendant-Appellee R.C. BIGELOW, INC., is represented by: James C. Danaher, Esq. Joan B. Flaherty, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 101 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: jdanaher@gordonrees.com jflaherty@gordonrees.com RC BIGELOW: Khasin Appeals Ruling From N.D. Cal. to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Alex Khasin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Alex Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Case No. 3:12- cv-02204-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court denied class certification in the Case, which is brought over food misbranding allegations challenging antioxidant claims for Bigelow's green tea. The appellate case is captioned as Alex Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Case No. 16-16641, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016; -- Transcript is due on November 15, 2016; -- Appellant Alex Khasin's opening brief is due on December 27, 2016; -- Appellee R.C. Bigelow, Inc.'s answering brief is due on January 27, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant ALEX KHASIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: J. Price Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN LAW FIRM 1100 Tyler Avenue Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 236-0047 Facsimile: (662) 513-0072 E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net - and - Ben (Pierce) F. Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 369-0800 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com Defendant-Appellee R.C. BIGELOW, INC., is represented by: James C. Danaher, Esq. Joan B. Flaherty, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 101 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: jdanaher@gordonrees.com jflaherty@gordonrees.com RELIANT SERVICES: Jackson Seeks Review of N.D. Illinois Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Jackson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Joseph Jackson v. Reliant Services Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03224, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Jackson v. Reliant Services Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-3453, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 30, 2016; and -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 26, 2016, for Joseph Jackson. Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH JACKSON, an Illinois Sole Proprietorshop, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons doing business as J&D BUILDERS, is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com Defendants-Appellees RELIANT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business as RELIANT FUNDING, and ADAM STETTNER, an individual, are represented by: Bradley Andreozzi, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP 191 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-1698 Telephone: (312) 569-1173 Facsimile: (312) 569-3173 E-mail: bradley.andreozzi@dbr.com REGIONS BANK: UM Law Clinic Gets Class Action Settlement Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- Monika Gonzalez Mesa, writing for Daily Business Review, report that the University of Miami School of Law's investor rights clinic has received $107,282 from the settlement of a class action lawsuit against Regions Bank related to U.S. Pension Trust Corp.'s sale of unregistered securities in the 1990s. The money is a cy pres distribution of money left over from a $13 million settlement after distributing most of the settlement to the class members. It would have cost $120,000 to cover the cost of another round of distributions to investors, said clinic director Teresa J. Verges. The plaintiffs counsel, including some UM law graduates, sought the cy pres order to allow distribution to the clinic, which under the supervision of Verges and another attorney represents investors for free when their claims are too small to attract an attorney. The settlement came in Laura Yelitza Cifuentes, et al. v. Regions Bank, filed in 2011 on behalf of more than 5,000 Latin American investors who purchased investment plans from Coral Gables-based U.S. Pension Trust. Regions had served as trustee for the investment plans. In the mid-1990s, U.S. Pension Trust solicited clients throughout Latin America to invest in mutual funds. The director of U.S. Pension never registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the state as a broker, dealer or investment adviser. Birmingham, Alabama-based Regions Bank served as plan trustee since 2001. The SEC accused U.S. Pension Trust of fraud, selling unregistered securities and inadequately disclosing fees and costs. The agency claimed Regions aided and abetted the sale of securities by an unregistered dealer. The SEC prevailed in both cases, and U.S. Pension Trust went out of business. The class action lawsuit, which followed the SEC actions, alleged the plans were sold in violation of Florida's investor protection statute and that Regions' involvement rendered it liable under the statute. "One of the reasons we recommended the investor rights clinic for a cy pres award is because the clinic reasonably approximates the interests of the class in the underlying case," said David Rothstein, a partner at Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein who graduated from the UM School of Law in 1995. "The clinic includes financial outreach and helping small claim investors recover losses due to fraud and broker misconduct." Many of the clinic's clients are on Social Security or disability and can't cover the cost of experts and travel to a hearing, Verges said. The distribution will underwrite the costs of the clinic, which has recovered $750,000 for clients since its inception in 2012. "If it wasn't for the clinic, all these people would have to either forgo their claim or purse them without an attorney pro se" in arbitration, Verges said. SANTA CRUZ: Ruling May Signal Revival of Mislabelling Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephen R. Freeland -- srfreeland@Venable.com -- of Venable LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that earlier this year, we discussed the Ninth Circuit's decision staying a consumer class action against Chobani challenging its listing of "evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient on its yogurt labels. According to the plaintiffs in that case, "evaporated cane juice" was simply code for sugar, and Chobani therefore allegedly misled them about the healthiness of its products. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that a stay was necessary on primary jurisdiction grounds in order to allow the FDA time to complete its review of draft guidance on the use of the term. This decision was viewed as a temporary breather for food companies facing class actions challenging the use of the term. The Northern District of California's recent decision in Swearingen v. Santa Cruz Natural, Inc., issued after the FDA published its final guidance, may signal a revival of such cases. As in Chobani, the class action complaint in Swearingen -- filed before the FDA issued its final guidance -- alleges that soda products offered for sale by Santa Cruz were misleadingly labeled as containing "evaporated cane juice." The Swearingen plaintiffs contend that the use of "evaporated cane juice" violates FDA regulations and California food labeling laws that require food labels to reflect the common or usual name of an ingredient which, as in Chobani, plaintiffs contend is sugar. The Swearingen complaint also asserted claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as claims for breach of warranty, negligence, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Santa Cruz moved to dismiss the complaint but the district court, like the Ninth Circuit in Chobani, stayed the action. After the FDA issued its final guidance -- which indicates that the term "evaporated cane juice" should be listed on food labels as "sugar" -- the district court in Swearingen lifted the stay and granted in part and denied in part Santa Cruz's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims because the damages sought are purely economic and, therefore, are barred by the economic loss rule. The court also dismissed -- with prejudice -- plaintiffs' breach of warranty claims for failing to give Santa Cruz the required statutory notice of breach and an opportunity to cure before filing suit. Plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief were also dismissed on standing grounds because they failed to allege that they intend to purchase Santa Cruz's soda products again. While the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to try to remedy this pleading failure, it expressed doubts that plaintiffs could do so. While the court also concluded that plaintiffs were barred from basing their claims on Santa Cruz soda products that did not list evaporated cane juice as an ingredient, the court permitted plaintiffs to pursue claims against products that did list that ingredient even if the named plaintiffs did not purchase those products. The court noted that courts within its own district "are split as to whether actual purchase is required to establish the requisite injury-in-fact" for standing. However, the court agreed with those decisions holding that, "where plaintiffs seek to proceed as representatives of a class . . . 'the critical inquiry seems to be whether there is sufficient similarity between the products purchased and not purchased." According to the court, the non-purchased soda products were sufficiently similar to the soda products purchased by the plaintiffs to give them standing to pursue claims based on both. The court also concluded that plaintiffs had pled sufficient facts to satisfy the "reasonable consumer" test under California's consumer protection laws, at least with respect to two of the products at issue. That test "'requires a plaintiff to show potential deception of consumers acting reasonably in the circumstances -- not just any consumers.'" According to the court, the two products that satisfied this standard -- at least at the pleading stage -- listed their sugar content at 29 and 25 grams respectively, and also listed "organic" purees and "juice concentrates" as ingredients. The court determined "that a reasonable consumer might think that these ingredients created naturally occurring sugars that comprised the sugar content of the beverage." However, the court had "reservations as to whether a reasonable consumer would be misled as regarding added sugars" in the other two products at issue, which listed sugar content of 35 and 32 grams respectively. According to the court, "[i]t is unclear that a reasonable consumer would believe that 35 [or 32] grams of sugar naturally occurs, as plaintiffs allege, in filtered water . . . juice, or other . . . flavorings." Nonetheless, despite the court's reservations, it declined to exclude these products at the motion to dismiss stage. This decision may signal a revival of class action claims against food manufacturers for listing "evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient. However, as the Swearingen court noted, a plaintiff must plead -- and, if they survive dismissal, later prove -- reliance on that term in order to satisfy the standing requirements of the FAL, CLRA and the "unlawful prong" of the UCL. SCR MEDICAL: Ill. App. Court Affirms Claims Dismissal in "James" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Margaret Stanton McBride of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of claims against defendants in the case captioned, COREY JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCR MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC.; PACE SUBURBAN BUS SERVICE, a Division of the Regional Transportation Authority, (RTA); EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY; and GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, (SCR Medical Transportation, Inc.; Pace Suburban Bus Service, a Division of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA); and Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees), Case No. 1-15-0358 (Ill. App.). Plaintiff Corey James filed the suit seeking declaratory relief entitling him up to $1 million in UIM coverage from SCR, Pace, and Empire, on grounds that when SCR contracted to provide drivers for Pace vans, SCR agreed to maintain $1 million in UIM coverage. He suffered personal injuries in Chicago on March 9, 2010, in a collision with a motorist he contends was underinsured. After receiving the $50,000 limit of the other motorist's insurance coverage and a $28,608 settlement in workers' compensation benefits from his own employer, James requested underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from his employer's business automobile liability insurer, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company (Empire). Empire denied the claim because SCR's UIM coverage was limited to $50,000, which was the amount James had already received from the other driver, meaning that he was not "underinsured" within the meaning of Empire's policy. He made four attempts at pleading a cause of action. Five of the nine counts were directed at SCR. In count I, James sought a declaratory judgment to the effect that the SCR-Pace contract regarding para-transit service required $1 million in UIM coverage and that a purported oral modification of that requirement was "against public policy and void." Count IV consisted of allegations that SCR, Pace, and Empire engaged in a civil conspiracy to "circumvent" the $1 million UIM requirement. Count V was a proposed class action seeking a declaratory judgment on behalf of all injured passengers and drivers of SCR-Pace vans who had been denied more than $50,000 in UIM coverage. There were two counts labeled as "Count VI," the second of which sought a declaratory judgment that SCR had "an obligation to provide $1,000,000 UIM benefits and has breached this obligation." Count VII was similar, but recast the allegations "AS TO THE CLASS OF PERSONS AGGRIEVED" and described the proposed class of plaintiffs as "all van drivers and handicapped passengers" who have not been paid "the $1,000,000 UIM benefits to which they are entitled." The trial court dismissed all claims against SCR, Pace, and Empire with prejudice pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also dismissed of Gemini Insurance Company (Gemini) from the suit. James neither appealed from that ruling nor included Gemini in his third amended complaint. The Appeals Court addressed the issue on whether James may bring a claim against his employer. James contends he may sue SCR because he is exempt from the principle that an employee injured on the job normally cannot sue his Illinois employer, provided the employee is entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits from the employer or the employer's insurer. He contends the $50,000 UIM coverage is contrary to public policy because the "purpose of UIM in this situation is simple: to provide benefits to only two classes of people, and no one else: the handicapped passengers in the SCR/PACE vans and the van drivers. In her Opinion dated September 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/DcP1a7 from Leagle.com, Judge McBride held that the trial court's rulings against James and in favor of SCR, Pace, and Empire were appropriate. The Court found that James is not a third-party beneficiary of the SCR-Pace contract because he has no contract provisions with which to overcome the strong presumption in Illinois that contracting parties intend that the terms of their agreement apply only to them, not to others. James also has not met the heavy burden of showing that the UIM terms should be invalidated for public policy reasons. SPD SWISS PRECISION: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Olvera" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Amanda Olvera filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit styled Amanda Olvera v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostic, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-02035-JLS-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Olvera v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostic, et al., Case No. 16-56343, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Olvera seeks damages, interest, restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief and reasonable attorneys' fees arising from alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law. SPD makes pregnancy tests that claim could estimate the number of weeks a woman was pregnant. Upon purchasing the product, Ms. Olvera claims that this does not work. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 14, 2016; -- Transcript is due on January 12, 2017; -- Appellant Amanda Olvera's opening brief is due on February 21, 2017; -- Answering brief of Appellees Procter & Gamble Co. and SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH is due on March 17, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant AMANDA OLVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 989-9113 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com - and - Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com Defendants-Appellees SPD SWISS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS GMBH and PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. are represented by: David Doss Piper, Esq. KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN 400 Oceangate Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 436-2000 Facsimile: (562) 436-7416 E-mail: david.piper@kyl.com SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced on September 21, 2016, that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities (NASDAQ:SPPI) from December 16, 2015 through September 16, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). To join the Spectrum class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-955.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the FDA previously questioned whether the data from the 611 and 612 Studies were clinically meaningful; (2) the FDA advised defendants in December 2012 not to submit the New Drug Application based on data from the 611 and 612 Studies; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements about Spectrum's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damage. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 21, 2016. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-955.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. STARBUCKS CORP: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Forouzesh" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Forouzesh filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled Alexander Forouzesh v. Starbucks Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03830-PA-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 26, 2016, the District Court has thrown cold water on the lawsuit, which claimed that Starbucks defrauded customers by adding ice to its cold beverages. Judge Percy Anderson tossed out the potential class action lawsuit because a reasonable customer would know that a portion of iced coffee or tea would include ice and they'd be able to see it through the clear plastic cups the beverages are served in. In fact, he said, even a child would get it. The appellate case is captioned as Alexander Forouzesh v. Starbucks Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-56355, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Alexander Forouzesh's opening brief is due on February 23, 2017; -- Appellees Does and Starbucks Corporation's answering brief is due on March 27, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXANDER FOROUZESH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Justin Farahi, Esq. FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 774-4500 Facsimile: (424) 295-0557 E-mail: justin@farahilaw.com Defendant-Appellee STARBUCKS CORPORATION is represented by: Robert J. Guite, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 4 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Telephone: (415) 774-3176 Facsimile: (415) 403-6014 E-mail: rguite@sheppardmullin.com - and - Robin Andrea Achen, Esq. Sascha Von Mende Henry, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 Telephone: (213) 617-5579 Facsimile: (213) 443-2893 E-mail: rachen@sheppardmullin.com shenry@sheppardmullin.com - and - Fred R. Puglisi, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001 Telephone: (310) 228-3733 Facsimile: (310) 228-3933 E-mail: fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Smith Seeks Review of D.S.C. Ruling to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Sharen Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit styled Sharen Smith v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-02846-BHH, in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia. The appellate case is captioned as Sharen Smith v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., Case No. 16-2055, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Initial forms are due within 14 days; -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on October 26, 2016; and -- Response Brief is due on November 28, 2016. Plaintiff-Appellant SHAREN SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph H. Aughtman, Esq. AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 1772 Platt Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 868-0440 - and - Aaron Craig Hemmings, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS PLLC 5613 Duraleigh Road P. O. Box 90698 Raleigh, NC 27675 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com - and - Joseph Clay Hopkins, Esq. William Elvin Hopkins, Jr., Esq. HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC 12019 Ocean Highway P. O. Box 1885 Pawleys Island, SC 29585 Telephone: (843) 314-4202 Facsimile: (843) 314-9365 E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com Defendant-Appellee STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Kevin Kendrick Bell, Esq. ROBINSON, MCFADDEN & MOORE, PC P. O. Box 944 Columbia, SC 29202-0944 Telephone: (803) 227-1111 Facsimile: (803) 744-1555 E-mail: kbell@robinsonlaw.com TEPPO PARTNERS: Ponsurayamas Appeals From N.D. Texas Decision ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Piyapat Ponsurayamas filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Piyapat Ponsurayamas v. Teppo Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-2345, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Piyapat Ponsurayamas v. Teppo Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 16-11365, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant PIYAPAT PONSURAYAMAS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), is represented by: Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net Defendants-Appellees TEPPO PARTNERS, L.P.; TEPPO MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; TEPPO ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; and MASAYUKI OTAKA are represented by: John Bridges Brown, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8117 Preston Road Preston Commons, W. Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: (214) 987-3800 Facsimile: (214) 987-3927 E-mail: john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trial on Student Class Action Set for Nov. 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dorian Hargrove, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that Donald Trump's attorneys have been denied a request as they go about defending their client from charges related to the Trump University case. According to a ruling posted on the federal court's website on September 20, the lawyers filed a motion requesting an opportunity to argue for allowing former students who are not members of the class-action lawsuit a chance to testify in the case. Former students sued Trump and his (now-defunct) real-estate university in April 2010 for what they claim was a pure money- making scheme. Students say that instructors were more concerned about bilking money from them for additional classes and expensive instruction packages than they were interested in their education. Instructors, alleges the complaint, persuaded students to take out small loans, borrow money from relatives, or max out credit cards to pay for the materials and extra classes. During the course of the past year the lawsuit has served as a distraction for the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier this year, Trump was criticized for questioning whether federal judge Gonzalo Curiel could remain unbiased due to his Mexican heritage and Trump's stance on illegal immigration. In August, Judge Curiel ruled against a motion from Trump's attorneys to dismiss the case. Curiel delivered this latest blow to Trump as well. Not allowing Trump University students who are not a part of the class action to testify, says lead Trump attorney Daniel Petrocelli in a September 19 court filing, essentially sets the stage for a one-sided trial. "Under the guise of 'streamlining' a trial in which they accuse defendants of fraud and elder abuse, plaintiffs seek to prevent the jury from hearing testimony of former students of Trump University, except for plaintiffs' three self-selected named representatives. No authority exists for such a one-sided affair." Petrocelli says the non-class members could offer a different view and help jurors determine whether they were told Trump University was an accredited college and whether they felt that Trump would actually play a part in their curriculum. "Such testimony is indisputably relevant and important for a jury to consider in determining whether plaintiffs have established their class case. Of course, plaintiffs will have the opportunity to object at trial to specific questions, cross-examine the former students, and offer their own evidence if they see fit to do so. And, naturally, the Court will regulate the admission and exclusion of all evidence proffered by both sides." One such former student was Meena Mohan. In July 2015, Mohan provided testimony in a separate class-action lawsuit brought by Art Cohen in Orange County. In her testimony, included in Petrocelli's September 19 motion, Mohan testified about her experience as a Trump University student. She said that she was never told that she had to leave positive reviews of the university. Nor was she ever led to believe that Trump University was actually an accredited or licensed university. As to Trump's involvement, Mohan said the following in her July 2015 deposition: "I believed that some of [Trump's] ideas must have been in the part of the package, but other than that, personal involvement, zero. That was my understanding." The case is set to head to trial on November 28. Trump Wants to Call Former Students to Witness Stand Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump pressed a federal judge in San Diego, on September 19 to allow him to call former Trump University students not part of a class action to the witness stand later this year. Trump wants U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to let him call a handful of former students from his now-defunct real estate school to testify about their positive experiences. The request comes a little less than two months before the trial in Low v. Trump University kicks off in San Diego Federal Court following the Thanksgiving holiday. In an order earlier this month, Curiel said he would not postpone the post-election trial date to accommodate a scheduling conflict for Trump's lead attorney Daniel Petrocelli, giving the go-ahead for the first of three Trump University lawsuits to go to trial. Sonny Low and the others sued Trump long before he launched his presidential bid, claiming they were duped into paying upwards of $35,000 on the promise they'd learn insider real estate secrets from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself. At a hearing earlier this summer, attorneys for the class told Curiel they would move to exclude testimony from any former Trump University students who are not class members, which Trump's attorneys opposed. After receiving filings from Trump and the plaintiffs on their respective positions, Trump asked Curiel on September 19, if the court would allow Trump to respond to the class' position. In addition to talking about their positive experiences, Trump's witnesses are expected to testify they did not believe that the use of the word "university" in the title meant the school was accredited, a direct conflict to the class' false advertising and fraud arguments. The class claims allowing Trump to call a dozen students who opted out of a class of more than 7,600 would skew testimony, noting there's no way they could speak for the entire class. Low and the others say they would have to call 600 class members for each opt- out student brought to the stand by Trump. On September 19, Trump said he wants to be allowed to respond to the plaintiffs' opposition because he claims the class presented new arguments and evidence in their opposition that he should be allowed to address. Trump also said the procedural background is "unusual," as the issue would normally be vetted in hearings before the trial, but "for whatever reason" Curiel did not require the plaintiffs do that when they requested the exclusion order. A 56-page exhibit attached to Trump's request includes an email exchange between the lawyers for both parties as well as a draft of Trump's response to the plaintiffs' opposition to calling the handful of students to the witness stand. Trump said the admissibility of former Trump University students' testimony is of "paramount importance" and implicates "defendants' constitutional rights and the integrity of the trial itself." Both parties and the court would benefit from a "full ventilation of these issues" which could only occur if Trump is granted permission to file response papers, the candidate said. The plaintiffs also filed a response late on September 19, indicating they plan to oppose Trump's request on the record by the end of the week. The case is captioned, SONNY LOW et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC et al., Defendants., Case No. 10-CV-0940- GPC(WVG)(S.D.CAL) TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Suits Provide Ground for Impeachment, Prof Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a University of Utah law professor believes the fraud allegations against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's now-defunct real estate school could constitute impeachable offenses if he is elected Nov. 8. Christopher Peterson penned a 23-page academic paper outlining how the fraud and racketeering claims in three lawsuits against Trump University, if proven, would rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution. Two of the class actions against Trump and Trump University are being litigated in San Diego federal court. The plaintiffs in Low v. Trump University and Cohen v. Trump rely on essentially the same fraud and false advertising claims, with the Cohen case claiming a violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The RICO claim triples damages and attorney fees if Trump is found to have knowingly defrauded Trump University students. The other case against Trump University was filed by New York's Attorney General. Students in the two class actions say the word "university" made them to believe the school was accredited. They also say the school misrepresented that instructors were "handpicked" by Trump himself. Some students paid upwards of $35,000 to attend the Trump University seminar classes and get hands-on mentorship and guidance from the instructors Trump purportedly "handpicked" to dish out his real estate investing secrets. Peterson said Trump University's advertising campaign capitalized on the businessman's "name recognition" and instructors who "boasted of having close personal relationships with Trump." The professor detailed the ways the Trump University seminars were focused on "up-selling" and capitalizing on the emotions of the attendees. Staff members also ranked attendees based on their liquid assets so they could more effectively sell expensive "Trump Elite" packages priced at up to $35,000. Consumers filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau, law enforcement offices in at least 11 states, the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, according to Peterson. The students said they did not receive meaningful real estate mentoring, were advised to engage in illegal behavior and were blamed for their inability to make money in the real estate market. In arguing the legality of impeaching a President Trump, Peterson points to a specific article in the Constitution which states the president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The authority to impeach a sitting president rests with Congress, with an affirmative vote required from at least two-thirds of senators. The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would preside over the trial. The law professor argues fraud and racketeering would constitute impeachable "high crimes or misdemeanors." He says while there may be public and political debate over what would constitute impeachable offenses, "the most plain" reading is simply that "impeachable behavior is only that which would subject an ordinary person to criminal indictment and prosecution." He says the breadth of the phrase was intentional by the framers of the Constitution and "leaves much to the wisdom and judgment of the House of Representatives and Senate." Peterson says there is no "clear legal hurdle" that would prevent Congress from beginning impeachment proceedings, noting it would be "well within its legal rights to insist upon a president who is not a fraudster or a racketeer." Peterson also argues impeachable offenses apply not only to those committed while in office, but to pre-incumbency conduct, especially in light of the current unorthodox race for the Oval Office. He says impeachment for conduct before being elected president is rare, but that may be because voters don't typically vote for candidates accused of "high crimes or misdemeanors." But Peterson also acknowledges that the strongest argument against impeaching Trump would be the collective voice of an electorate who, despite the accusations, chose to elect Trump to the highest office of the United States. An election win for Trump would not make him untouchable, though, as voters' own elected representatives could move to kick him out. According to Peterson, Trump's attempt to "publicly misrepresent the facts and circumstances surrounding his alleged fraud and racketeering" should also be weighed when deciding if impeachment is the correct action to take. Trump has "deflected blame" and attempted to "tarnish the reputations" of those former students involved in the cases against him, and most notably criticized the judge presiding over the two San Diego cases -- U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel -- by attacking Curiel's Mexican heritage when the judge ruled against him. "If Trump had apologized and accepted responsibility for the alleged fraud and racketeering, the argument that the election served as an effective referendum on the appropriateness of impeachment would be more persuasive," Peterson wrote. "As it stands, Trump's own representations regarding the case may have distorted the public view of whether Trump committed fraud or racketeering." Looking to the effects of the Trump campaign on American politics, Peterson said Trump has "planted to seeds for a weakened presidency." He also points out that while Trump has threatened to commit "high crimes" if elected, including ordering the murder of innocent family members of terrorism suspects and torturing suspected criminal defendants, he has already committed crimes against American consumers. Unlike his promised crimes yet to come, the illegal acts in Trump's high-pressure wealth seminars have already occurred," Peterson wrote. TWININGS NORTH: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Lanovaz" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Lanovaz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled NANCY LANOVAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:12- cv-02646-RMW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Nancy Lanovaz sued Twinings claiming it misbranded its tea as containing antioxidants. She claimed that because California had adopted federal regulations, Twinings also violated California laws on unfair competition, false advertising and consumer remedies. The appellate case is captioned as NANCY LANOVAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 16-16628, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 13, 2016; -- Transcript must be filed by court reporter by November 14, 2016; -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be served and filed on December 22, 2016; -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record must be served and filed on January 23, 2017; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief must be filed and served within 14 days of service of the appellee's brief. TWITTER INC: Brower Piven Files Investors Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announced on September 21, 2016, that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Twitter, Inc., common stock during the period between February 6, 2015 and July 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until November 15, 2016 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Twitter common stock during the Class Period. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that by early 2015, daily active users ("DAUs") had replaced the timeline views metric as the primary user engagement metric tracked internally by Twitter management and the trend in use engagement growth was flat or declining, new product initiatives were not having a meaningful impact on MAUs (a measure of the total user base) or user engagement, the acceleration in MAU growth was the result of low- quality MAU growth, and the previously issued projections regarding MAU growth lacked any reasonable basis. According to the complaint, following a July 28, 2015 press release announcing its second quarter 2015 financial results, disclosing that MAUs had increased by only 2 million users over the prior growth, product initiatives had not affected growth, and that organic growth was going to be very low, the value of Twitter shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Twitter common stock purchased on or after February 6, 2015 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415- 6616. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. UBER: Ruling Tips Drivers Away From Class-Action Suits ------------------------------------------------------ Mike Isaac, writing for The New York Times, reports that a federal court ruled on Sept. 7 that Uber drivers are subject to individual arbitration in a class-action case over background checks, handing the ride-hailing company a legal decision that it may be able to use to fend off other driver class-action suits. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 8 ruled that private arbitration agreements -- a clause that Uber drivers agree to when signing up to drive for the company -- were valid and enforceable in a case, Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, in which drivers had taken issue with Uber's background check practices. The decision reversed a previous ruling in the case, where a district court judge had deemed private arbitration unenforceable. Private arbitration, a legal maneuver often used by companies, allows corporations to litigate against plaintiffs individually instead of through class-action lawsuits. Opponents of the practice argue that binding arbitration clauses give companies unfair advantages against workers, who typically do not have the time and resources to fight companies on their own. "Arbitration is a fair, speedy and less costly alternative to class-action litigation," Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Uber's outside counsel at the law firm Gibson Dunn, said in a statement. "We've always believed our optional arbitration agreements should have applied in this case, and we're pleased with the court's decision today." While the ruling is limited to the Mohamed case, it establishes a precedent that gives Uber ammunition to fight other class-action lawsuits. That includes a separate class-action case in which nearly 400,000 current and former Uber drivers sued to be classified as employees, rather than as independent contractors. "Today's decision is not good" for the class-action suit where Uber drivers sought to be labeled employees, Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer representing that case, said in a statement. The ruling comes just months after Uber and Ms. Liss-Riordan had come to an agreement to settle the driver classification case for as much as $100 million. In August, a judge rejected the terms of the initial settlement as inadequate. If Uber files a motion to apply the ruling to the driver classification suit, that could force drivers in the case to turn to individual arbitration. Ms. Liss-Riordan said the battle for her clients is far from over. She said she has more than 1,500 drivers signed up in California to pursue individual arbitration cases if necessary, and she urged any other drivers who wish to do the same to contact her. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Attys Seek 9th Circ. Review of ADR Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs' attorneys pursuing a class action against Uber Technologies Inc. have asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a panel decision that they say "creates a new level of insulation" for arbitration agreements. In a petition for rehearing en banc, lawyers at Ahdoot & Wolfson and Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho argue that the August opinion sending driver disputes into arbitration runs counter to Ninth Circuit jurisprudence as well as rules established by the Supreme Court. The three-judge panel held that Uber's 2013 and 2014 arbitration agreements are valid and were not unfairly forced upon drivers. In its decision reversing U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, the panel ruled that the ability of drivers to opt out of arbitration meant the contract was not "unconscionable." If it stands, the decision could stem the tide of class actions that have confronted the company on the issue of how it classifies drivers. Hundreds of thousands of Uber drivers have signed those arbitration agreements. The petition for rehearing argues that the opinion by Circuit Judge Richard Clifton is "incompatible" with Ninth Circuit case law. Plaintiffs lawyers challenge the panel's interpretation of a key precedent, Kilgore v. KeyBank, and point to a fresh Ninth Circuit decision on the National Labor Relations Act, which held that companies cannot use arbitration pacts to bar employees from collective action. Uber's arbitration pact contains a class-action waiver, but the NLRA issue was not central to the Ninth Circuit panel's decision. In a footnote, Clifton dismissed the NLRA argument as made too late by the plaintiffs. The decision then went on to say that the presence of an opt-out clause immunizes an arbitration agreement against any NLRA violation because accepting the waiver is not a "condition of employment." The plaintiffs say that goes against decisions from the Ninth and Seventh circuits. Parties in those cases have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. "At the very least, this court should grant en banc review to await the outcome of petitions for writ of certiorari that have been filed with the Supreme Court," they wrote. Uber's lead lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, declined to comment. WAL-MART STORES: Face U.S. Class Suit Over Alleged Mexican Bribery ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel and Nandita Bose, writing for Reuters, report that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. must face a class-action lawsuit accusing the world's largest retailer of defrauding shareholders by concealing suspected bribery to help it expand faster in Mexico, a U.S. judge said. In a decision on September 20, U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey in Fayetteville, Arkansas rejected Wal-Mart's contention that a Michigan pension fund had no standing to lead the case because it had not suffered losses on the retailer's stock. The decision means shareholders can sue Wal-Mart and former Chief Executive Mike Duke as a group over the alleged cover-up of bribery at Wal-Mart de Mexico. This could lead to a larger payout at lower cost than if individual lawsuits were required. Class certification "would enhance judicial economy and efficiency," given that many shareholders had small claims, and "concentrating the claims in defendants' home forum with uniform decisions is desirable," Hickey wrote. Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said the Bentonville, Arkansas- based retailer believes a class action is "not appropriate," and may appeal the certification decision. The market value of Wal-Mart fell by roughly $17 billion over three days in April 2012, after The New York Times published a Pulitzer Prize-winning report saying the retailer paid bribes to Mexican officials for years to speed up store openings. Shareholders said Wal-Mart knew about the scheme as early as 2005, and downplayed it even after learning about the Times' investigation. Wal-Mart had argued that a widely-accepted accounting method prevented the lead plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System from showing it lost money on Wal-Mart stock. But the judge said the pension fund could show losses under another widely-accepted accounting method, and that Wal-Mart failed to show why its preferred method was better. The class period runs from Dec. 8, 2011 to April 20, 2012, Hickey said. WASHINGTON, USA: Hoffman Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to 9th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Mary Hoffman, Susan Routh, Linda Eby and Mary Jane Aurdal Olson filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Mary Hoffman, et al. v. Department of Social and Health Services of the State of Washington, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv- 00200-MJP, in the U.S. District Court for Western District of Washington, Seattle. The appellate case is captioned as Mary Hoffman, et al. v. Department of Social and Health Services of the State of Washington, et al., Case No. 16-35749, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 14, 2016; -- Transcript is due on November 14, 2016; -- Opening brief of Appellants Linda Eby, Mary Hoffman, Mary Jane Aurdal Olson and Susan Routh is due on December 23, 2016; -- Answering brief of Appellees Department of Social and Health Services of the State of Washington, Jay Inslee, Patricia Lashway and SEIU Healthcare 775NW is due on January 23, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants MARY HOFFMAN, SUSAN ROUTH, LINDA EBY and MARY JANE AURDAL OLSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Patrick Brown, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. BROWN 1169 E. John St., #101 Seattle, WA 98112 Telephone: (206) 909-3922 - and - Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON & NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 837-4717 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - Jeffrey Iver Tilden, Esq. GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 467-6477 E-mail: jtilden@gordontilden.com Defendants-Appellees DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; JAY INSLEE, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Washington; and PATRICIA LASHWAY, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services of the State of Washington, are represented by: Alicia Orlena Young, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL (OLYMPIA) P.O. Box 40126 Olympia, WA 98504-0126 Telephone: (360) 586-6398 Defendant-Appellee SEIU HEALTHCARE 775NW is represented by: Scott A. Kronland, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com - and - Michael Craig Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com WELLS FARGO: Mandatory Arbitration Clause Could Thwart Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that Wells Fargo & Co. customers aiming to sue the bank over bogus accounts opened in their names may be in for an unpleasant surprise: the fine print requires them to take their claims to an arbitrator instead of a court. Mandatory arbitration rules inserted into account-opening agreements prohibit customers from joining class actions or suing the third-largest U.S. bank in court. Instead, the agreements require individual, closed-door arbitration. U.S. senators highlighted the issue on September 20 as they grilled Wells Fargo Chief Executive Officer John Stumpf during a hearing. Asked if he would set aside the mandatory arbitration agreements for customers affected by the phantom accounts, Stumpf demurred. "I'm not an expert in that," he said, adding he would talk to his legal team. That was not enough for some lawmakers. "If we had class action on this in 2010, 2009, 2008, the problem never would have gotten so out of hand," Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said later, when questioning regulators about the practice. Class actions can be more affordable for unhappy customers, especially those with limited resources, because they can band together to sue, rather than having to hire lawyers individually. Consumers also complain that target companies often choose the arbitrators; proceedings are confidential; and decisions are hard to appeal. Three Wells Fargo customers filed a lawsuit on September 16 in a Utah federal court, seeking class action status on behalf of hundreds of thousands of customers nationwide they say were harmed by the San Francisco-based bank's fraud and recklessness. It was unclear whether they could get around the mandatory arbitration clauses, though. Last year, Wells successfully invoked the clauses to defend against a class action suit tied to bogus accounts. In that case, the judge said customers had to arbitrate because of agreements they signed when opening legitimate accounts at the bank. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a brainchild of Warren, was part of the regulatory group that negotiated a $190 million settlement from Wells Fargo over the bogus accounts. The bureau is considering rules to ban banks, credit card issuers and other companies from forcing customers to submit to arbitration and waive their right to join class action lawsuits. Under the proposal, companies could still use arbitration, but would have to tell consumers they could join class action lawsuits instead. Mandating arbitration when signing up for financial products has become standard practice after a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision validated the practice. Still, the tide may be turning, said Joseph Peiffer, a New Orleans lawyer who has represented investors and others in class action lawsuits. "Class actions dissuade companies from ripping people off a thousand dollars here and a thousand dollars there," Peiffer said. WELLS FARGO: Faces Workers' Action Over Fake Accounts ----------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that former and present Wells Fargo employees in California filed a $2.6 billion class action against the bank, claiming they are the "biggest victims" of the bank's policy of opening accounts without customers' knowledge. On Sept. 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hit Wells Fargo Bank with a $100 million penalty for secretly and unlawfully opening deposit and credit card accounts. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ordered the third largest bank in the nation to pay $35 million. The same day, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said that the city had reached a $50 million settlement with the bank over the practice. Up to 1.5 million deposit accounts were opened without authorization and as many as 565,000 applications were opened that may not have been authorized, Feuer's office said -- adding that 5,300 employees had been fired. On September 22, Wells Fargo employees filed a class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court claiming that the bank imposed strict quotas on employees across all of its branches. The bank pressured workers to foist up to eight banking products on customers whether they wanted them or not, the complaint says. According to the filing, the bank's aggressive and illegal sales tactics pushed employees to "breaking point." Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf saw Wells Fargo stock soar as a result, while thousands of employees earning $12 per hour were left to shoulder the blame for banks' conduct, the 26-page lawsuit says. "The biggest victims of this scheme are a class of people that nobody else has talked about. The biggest victims of Wells Fargo's scam is the class of victims that were fired because they did not meet these cross-sell quotas by engaging in the fraudulent scam that would line the CEO's pockets," the class says in its lawsuit. "The good employees with a conscience who tried to meet the sales quotas without engaging in fraudulent scams are the biggest victims of this scam. They are the employees that this lawsuit seeks to redress." Wells Fargo constantly monitors employees to make sure that they are meeting the bank's strict sales quotas, according to the class, and employees who do not meet daily and monthly quotas are told to do "whatever it takes" to meet them. "Defendants strictly enforced and closely monitored sales quota system that made it difficult for plaintiffs to keep their jobs without resorting to fraud," the class says in the lawsuit. Wells Fargo fired employees who did not meet the "impossible quotas" to motivate remaining workers and further the scheme, according to the lawsuit. Claims include termination and retaliation, unlawful business practices and failure to pay wages. The class seeks total damages of $2.6 billion, an injunction and statutory penalties. Attorney Jonathan Delshad who is representing named plaintiffs Alexander Polonsky and Brian Zaghi did not respond to requests for interviews by phone and email on September 23. Wells Fargo spokesman Mark Folk declined to comment. At a Senate Banking Committee hearing this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, said that Stumpf should resign and face a criminal investigation. She joined other senators in calling for the Department of Labor to investigate the firing of bank employees. "Okay, so you haven't resigned, you haven't returned a single nickel of your personal earnings, you haven't fired a single senior executive," Warren said to Stumpf on September 20. "Instead, evidently, your definition of 'accountable' is to push the blame to your low-level employees who don't have the money for a fancy PR firm to defend themselves." On September 22, lawsuit follows two shareholder derivative complaints filed against the Wells Fargo board in San Francisco County Superior Court. YAKULT USA: Torrent Seeks 9th Circuit Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Nicolas Torrent filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Nicolas Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00124-CJC-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action arises out of the Defendant's alleged false and misleading claims that the live microorganism Lactobacillus casei Shirota in the Yakult probiotic drink is beneficial to human health and helps balance the digestive system. The appellate case is captioned as Nicolas Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 16-56338, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant NICOLAS TORRENT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq. Jared Harrison Beck, Esq. BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS Corporate Park at Kendall 12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205 Miami, FL 33186 Telephone: (305) 234-2060 Facsimile: (786) 664-3334 E-mail: elizabeth@beckandlee.com jared@beckandlee.com - and - Cullin O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com Defendant-Appellee YAKULT U.S.A., INC., is represented by: Adam R. Fox, Esq. SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300 Telephone: (213) 624-2500 E-mail: adam.fox@squirepb.com YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Retirement Plan Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey D. Mamorsky -- mamorskyj@gtlaw.com -- Terry L. Moore -- mooreterry@gtlaw.com -- and Francis Serbaroli -- serbarolif@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that there has been much media coverage of the recent class action lawsuits filed against some of the most prestigious universities in the United States by university employees. These class action lawsuits allege that the universities breached their fiduciary obligations in running their defined contribution 403(b) retirement plans by allowing the plans to pay excessive investment, record-keeping and administrative fees, thereby resulting in reduced retirement savings for their employees. The roster of current defendants includes Yale, MIT, Vanderbilt, Duke, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Pennsylvania, among others, and more class actions of this type against other universities are expected. These suits are similar to the fiduciary-duty breach hidden fee litigation that has bedeviled corporate 401(k) plan sponsors for years. The suits also claim that some university retirement plans offer too many investment options (Duke University allegedly offered more than 400; John Hopkins, 440; and Vanderbilt, 340), have multiple recordkeepers (John Hopkins allegedly has five recordkeepers; Duke and Vanderbilt, four) and the universities failed to put record- keeping and other services for their retirement plans out for competitive bidding on a periodic basis. Among the plaintiffs' allegations are that the universities' failure to properly supervise their plans resulted in too many and confusing investment options; that some investments charged significant withdrawal penalties thereby making withdrawal very difficult; that retirement assets were invested in actively managed underperforming funds with high retail costs as opposed to less expensive institutional index funds; and that, in some cases, conflicts of interest existed between the universities' plans and the universities' board members and administration. While these suits have only recently been filed, other suits against 401(k) plan sponsors for alleged mismanagement and high fees have already resulted in settlements running into tens of millions of dollars. Not-for-profits sponsoring 403(b) plans must realize that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), they likely will be met with allegations that they are fiduciaries, responsible for demonstrating prudence in selecting and monitoring the plan's service providers, making sure that the plan is operated in accordance with its terms, and assuring that the plan's expenses are reasonable. ERISA requires a plan fiduciary to act solely in the interest of the plan's participants and their beneficiaries. What should be of concern particularly to large not-for-profit hospital and health care systems is that their roles as fiduciaries of their employees' retirement plans is no different than that of the universities involved in these class actions. In fact, the law firm that is at the forefront of bringing these class action lawsuits brought a similar class-action lawsuit in 2014 against Novant Health, a not-for-profit hospital system that operates numerous hospitals in the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia. In that case, a retired physician and several other employees claimed, among other things, that the fees associated with Novant's retirement plan increased tenfold over three years; that its retirement plan options were too costly; and that the founder of a brokerage firm that earned fees from Novant's retirement plans had previously donated $5 million to one of Novant's hospital facilities. The Novant suit was settled in May 2016 for $32 million. Not-for-profit hospital and health care systems should consult with counsel in order to consider taking steps to reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim of these class action lawsuits. There are some steps such plan sponsors may want to consider: * Adopting a robust governance structure that regularly reviews the types of investment funds offered and their performance as compared to other funds, examines expenses and annuities in particular, and regularly benchmarks and documents fees to determine if they are reasonable. * Adopting an investment policy statement pointing towards supervision of the plans to assure that they are operated exclusively in the best interests of the plans' participants. * Setting up performance standards for the plan's service providers and regularly monitoring their performance. * Conducting a confidential, comprehensive, and objective review (perhaps by independent counsel who specializes in plan governance and forensic fee analysis) of all current investment options available in the plans, the investment option selection process, and all administrative, investment, and record-keeping fees. Any decisions to change or decisions to keep fund options should be documented. * Implementing a periodic competitive bidding process for record-keeping, administrative, investment consulting, plan participant education, and other commoditized plan services. * Providing all plan participants with accurate information about all retirement plan options, all fees they may incur, and the identity of plan fiduciaries. As noted above, this list is not exhaustive, and while taking any of these measures has the potential to reduce exposure to risk, it is not a guarantee. Risk mitigation techniques should be developed with counsel and tailored to your specific needs. YASAR CORP: "Morales" Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Edwin E. Morales, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yasar Corporation d/b/a N&J Food Market, a Florida for profit corporation, and Yasar Saleh, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23954, (S.D. Fla., September 15, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum wage compensation and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment. Defendants operate a food market located in Miami-Dade County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a cook. Morales claims to be paid below the mandatory minimum wage rates and denied overtime premium. Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Pastukh, Esq. ALEXANDER PASTUKH, P.A. 1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 800 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 502-5715 E-mail: apastukh@appalaw.com YAHOO INC: Data Breach May Prompt Litigation, Experts Say --------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Yahoo confirmed on September 22, a massive data breach dating back to 2014 that affected as many as 500 million user accounts. "A recent investigation by Yahoo! Inc has confirmed that a copy of certain user account information was stolen from the company's network in late 2014 by what it believes is a state-sponsored actor," the company said in a September 22, press release. A data breach affecting 500 million users would represent the largest data breach in history, according to multiple reports. Peeved Yahoo users began filing what will no doubt be a raft of class actions on September 23. The ramifications of the breach remain unknown, but the tech giant insists that the breach was limited to names, email addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates and in some cases passwords and encrypted security questions. "The ongoing investigation suggests that stolen information did not include unprotected passwords, payment card data, or bank account information; payment card data and bank account information are not stored in the system that the investigation has found to be affected," the company said. Yahoo is in the process of notifying its customers and encouraging them to change passwords and security answers and to monitor their email accounts for suspicious activity. "Online intrusions and thefts by state-sponsored actors have become increasingly common across the technology industry," the company said. "Yahoo and other companies have launched programs to detect and notify users when a company strongly suspects that a state-sponsored actor has targeted an account." At this point, many experts in the legal field believe litigation is inevitable. Anthem and other insurance companies that suffered a data breach, widely thought to be initiated by China, were hit with multiple class-action lawsuits. Plaintiffs seek millions in damages. Target and other large companies have also been sued by consumers who claimed the corporations failed to protect their personal information. * U.S. Reps Ask CFPB to Include Safe Harbor in Arbitration Rule --------------------------------------------------------------- In a bipartisan letter, the leaders of a House subcommittee write that the CFPB's proposal to ban the use of class action waivers in pre-dispute arbitration agreements could end up limiting consumer choice and hurting consumers. The leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Service Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit from both sides of the aisle have sent a letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau urging Director Richard Cordray to create a safe harbor in the Bureau's final rule regulating pre-dispute arbitration agreements. In the letter, U.S. Reps. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) expressed their concern that the CFPB's proposed rule on pre-dispute arbitration agreements--which would forbid financial institutions from including class action waiver provisions in their arbitration agreements--may limit consumers' options for disputes and ultimately hurt low-income consumers. "A prohibition on class action waivers will result in financial institutions dissolving their consumer-friendly arbitration programs as they are forced to bear significantly increased exposure associated with class action litigation," they wrote. "Such an outcome would leave many American consumers seeking to remedy small dollar disputes without a viable forum for resolution." Instead, Neugebauer and Clay wrote that the CFPB could create a safe harbor for financial institutions by developing clear, consumer-friendly model arbitration agreements for them to use. The CFPB issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Arbitration Agreements on May 24; in August, ACA International submitted comments opposing the rule. ACA urged the CFPB to withdraw the Proposed Rule and take a more balanced approach that will allow it to achieve the same public policy goals that it purports to achieve through a ban on class action waivers, but in a way that preserves individual arbitration, does not run afoul of explicit congressional directives, and is fair for consumers and compliance-minded businesses, including debt collectors. Arbitration agreements containing class action waivers play an important role by offering legitimate debt collectors, especially small businesses, a way to quickly and more easily defeat inappropriate class action lawsuits. In the credit and collection industry, class action lawsuits frequently get filed despite lacking crucial criteria. Such class filings are often used strategically in hopes of increasing a settlement offer. ********* 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 * * *