/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161031.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 31, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 217
Headlines
ACCORDIA LIFE: Faces "McGuire" Class Action in Calif. Court
ADEPTUS HEALTH: Oklahoma Retirement System Files Class Action
ADVANCED MICRO: Discovery Underway in "Hatamian" Suit
AIR SERV: Faces "Washington" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals in "Kaufman" Suit Still Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Plumbers Union's Suit Underway
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motions to Dismiss "Houssain" Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement in "Lopez" Action Granted Final OK
ARCO PLUMBING: Faces "Jeximbiyev" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
ARENA PHARMA: 9th Cir. Resurrects Weight-Loss Drug Class Suit
BAKER HUGHES: Delaware Chancery Court Ruled on Counsel's Fee Bid
BAKER HUGHES: Still Defends "Williams" Action in North Dakota
BANK OF NEW YORK: "Beverly" Asserts Homeowners' Rights Breach
BENORE LOGISTIC: Perkins Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
BIOGEN INC: Electrical Workers File Securities Lawsuit
BIOGEN INC: Dismissal of Securities Case Under Appeal
C. R. BARD: Class Action Over Hernia Product Claims Pending
C. R. BARD: Health Product Claims by 10,110 Plaintiffs Pending
C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 1,055 Plaintiffs Pending
CENTERVIEW PARTNERS: Faces "Appel" Suit in Delaware Chancery Ct.
CHRYSLER GROUP: "Garcia" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Cal.
DAIRY FARMERS: $50-Mil. Settlement Offer Rejected
DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, Ariz. Wage Law
DS SERVICES: "Loo" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. California
E. I. DU PONT: Appeals Verdict in 2 Drinking Water Actions
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Deny Class Cert. in "Beeman" Underway
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify "Brady" Remains Pending
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Amended Complaint Filed in Pension Fund Case
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Defends Anthem ERISA Litigation
FACEBOOK INC: Hearing Held on Suit Over Use of Biometric Data
FCA US: "Harbin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2477
FITBIT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Robb" Class Action Denied
FLIGHT SERVICES: Cook et al. Seek to Recover Wages Under FLSA
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: "Wilkerson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Faces "Humphery" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
GALDERMA LABORATORIES: "Greenberg" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
GENERAL MOTORS: 117 Class Suits Pending in US & Canada at Oct. 19
GENERAL MOTORS: Jan. 2017 Hearing on Appeal in Ontario Case
GOLDCORP INC: Faces "Brunner" Securities Suit Over Mine Updates
HARMONY GOLD: Mining Companies Appeal Class Action Ruling
HAWAII, US: Court Certifies Confidential IDEA Class in ERK Suit
HOME CARE: "Davis" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to E.D. New York
HOUSTON GUNITE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Ramos" Suit Alleges
IDAHO: Court Approves Settlement in Case vs Health Dept.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: ERISA Plaintiffs' Action Remains Pending
IRONDEQUOIT COUNTY CLUB: Faces "Mros" Suit in New York Sup. Ct.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Joseph" Lawsuit Transferred to JPML
K12 INC: Tarapara and Tuinenburg Cases Consolidated
KOCH FOODS: "Glover" Lawsuit Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
LINKUS ENTERPRISES: "Komarnicki" Suit Moved to E.D. of California
LOS ANGELES: Police Department Faces Arellano-Reza Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Page" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
MAOZ VEGETARIAN: Faces "Barrera" Suit in S.D. of New York
MERCK SHARP: Medicine To Go Sues Over TCPA Violation
MERRILL LYNCH: "Fang" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MGM RESORTS: Faces "Hanson" Lawsuit Over Gift Card Sale Practices
MOBILTY CENTER: Faces "Meindl" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Parties in Discovery
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Northrup" Class Suit in N.D. Georgia
NATURAL HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Underway
NOODLES & CO: Credit Union Sues Over Private Info Security Breach
NUVASIVE INC: Trial in Securities Litigation Set for Dec. 2017
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Final Settlement Hearing on Dec. 16
PANERA BREAD: Class Action Settlement Terms Under Negotiation
PHILADELPHIA, PA: "Owens" Files Suit Over Speed Restrictions
PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking and Health Class Suits Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Constitutional Appeal in Brazil Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Brazil Public Prosecutor Case Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. Hearing on Merits Appeal in Letourneau Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. Hearing on Merits Appeal in Blais Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activities Anticipated in 3 Canada Suits
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: "Hogan" Sues Over Broiler Chicken Price-Fixing
PRUDENT INC: Faces "Campos" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
PUERTO RICO: "Carlo" Sues Police Dept. Over Unpaid Wages
SCANSOURCE INC: Faces "Hamilton" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
SIX FLAGS: Defending Against Suit Alleging Privacy Act Violations
SONY CORP: Faces Class Action Over PlayStation 4 Defect
SUNEDISON INC: "Linton" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
SUPERIOR STONE: Faces "Diakakis" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
SYNGENTA AG: Farms Suit Transferred to Kansas Ct.
TERRAFORM POWER: Chamblee Stock Suit Consolidated with MDL 2742
THOMSON CONSUMER: New Toxic Tort Lawsuit Filed in Taiwan
TIMS FOOD: Faces "Nurazaman" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
TWIN RIVERS: "Minor" Suit Wants to Collect Overtime Under FLSA
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Revives Portion of Shareholder Suit
USG CORPORATION: Homebuilders' Conspiracy Claims Still Pending
VEREIT INC: Faces "Badger" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ADA
WEBSTER CAFE: Faces "Pacheco" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
WASHINGTON: Fisk, et al. File Suit v. DHSA and SEIU
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Final Settlement OK Expected in 4th Quarter
WESTPORT LINEN: "Cavin" Suit Alleges Non-payment of OT Under FLSA
ZAIS FINANCIAL: "Dexter" Action in Baltimore Resolved
*********
ACCORDIA LIFE: Faces "McGuire" Class Action in Calif. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN L. MCGUIRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ACCORDIA LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, GLOBAL
ATLANTIC FINANCIAL GROUP LIMITED and ALLIANCE-ONE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-02209-JAK-SP (C.D. Cal., October 19, 2016), is
brought on behalf of similarly situated persons with a life
insurance policy or annuity from Accordia and serviced by
Alliance-One, who had their policy cancelled for non-payment of
premiums due to Accordia or Alliance-One's failure to timely
collect payment.
Accordia Life and Annuity Company is an Iowa corporation with its
principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. Accordia is
a registered life and disability insurance company with the State
of California Department of Insurance.
Defendant Global Atlantic Financial Group Limited is a financial
services holding company organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New
York. Alliance-One Services, Inc., is an accounts receivable
management company organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Falls
Church, Virginia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sunny G. Khehra, Esq.
Paula Jovell, Esq.
K & J LAW GROUP
560 W. Main Street, Suite 823
Alhambra, CA 91801
Telephone: (626) 343-5796
Facsimile: (626) 343-5799
- and -
James M. Terrell, Esq.
P. Michael Yancey, Esq.
MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
The Highland Building
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: jterrell@mmlaw.net
myancey@mmlaw.net
ADEPTUS HEALTH: Oklahoma Retirement System Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that,
citing enormous medical bills for minor injuries that allegedly
boosted unsustainable revenue growth, a pension plan filed a class
action against Adeptus Health for a secondary public offering that
brought it and a sponsor $393 million.
Filed on October 27, with a federal judge in Texas, the complaint
by the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System is the Oct. 28
Top Download for Courthouse News. Defendants include Adeptus
Health and Sterling Partners.
Based in Lewisville, Texas, Adeptus Health runs two hospitals and
93 clinics, in Texas, Colorado and Arizona. It raised $266 million
in its July 31, 2015 secondary public offering, and its largest
shareholder at the time, raised another $127 million, both at a
little over $100 a share, according to the complaint.
Citing the company's own statements, the pension plan says Adeptus
"'operate[s] at the higher end of the acuity and emergency care
spectrum' and derives higher revenue from more complex treatments,
in part, because reimbursement rates set by third-party payors
tend to be higher for higher acuity visits."
Be that as it may, the pension fund says, Adeptus billed patients
so exorbitantly that it prompted NBC News to investigate. Adeptus'
corporate predecessor was called First Choice ER.
KUSA-TV in Denver, an NBC station, broadcast an investigative
report on Nov. 17, 2015, after "months of investigation," and
"found that the company's First Choice ERs engaged in a pattern
and practice of predatory overbilling," the complaint states.
It continues, with the interior quotes apparently taken from the
NBC report: "For example, Jennifer Martin, who visited a First
Choice ER for shortness of breath, stated 'they sent me home and
told me I needed to relax.' Two weeks later, Ms. Martin received a
bill totaling $6,237. Jeff Nixon, a deck builder complained that
he was billed $3,690 to have a splinter removed from his thumb.
Doug Linder, who walked into a UCHealth ER in August 2015 with a
cut finger, complained that he was charged over $3,000 for a few
stitches. 'We had no idea we were going to get slammed with this
[bill],' his wife Teresa said. 'Honestly, it just sucks.'"
The overbilling caused Adeptus Health's revenue per patient visit
to increase by more than 50 percent in four years, according to
the lawsuit.
The class claims that Adeptus's registration statement for its SPO
was inaccurate and omitted information that had to be disclosed.
The statement did not disclose its excessive billing practices,
nor the large volume of patient complaints, nor the risks
associated with its practices, nor why it reported ballooning
rates of same-store revenue growth, while its same-store patient
volumes were steadily declining, according to the complaint.
"Defendants were also motivated to engage in this course of
conduct to allow the company and company insiders to sell more
than one-half billion dollars of Adeptus Health common shares at
inflated prices," the complaint states.
The pension fund seeks class certification, damages for securities
violations and fraud, and rescission of the SPO. Defendants
include Adeptus officers and board members, Sterling Partners,
Goldman Sachs & Co., and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith.
The pension fund is represented by Samuel Rudman with Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd in Melville, N.Y., and T. John Ward Jr. with
Ward, Smith & Hill in Longview, Texas.
ADVANCED MICRO: Discovery Underway in "Hatamian" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 24, 2016, that discovery
process is ongoing in the "Hatamian" class action lawsuit.
On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 (the Hatamian Lawsuit) was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint purports to
assert claims against the Company and certain individual officers
for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock during the period April 4, 2011 through October 18,
2012. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the
Company and the individual officers regarding the Company's 32nm
technology and "Llano" product, which statements and omissions,
the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate
the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.
On July 7, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On May 14, 2015, the Company filed its answer to plaintiffs'
corrected amended complaint. On September 4, 2015, plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification, and on March 16, 2016,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion. A court-ordered mediation
held in January 2016 did not result in a settlement of the
lawsuit. The discovery process is ongoing.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company
believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or
results of operations.
AIR SERV: Faces "Washington" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Serv
Corporation. The case is captioned Jamell Washington, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Air Serv
Corporation and Virgin America Airlines, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05883 (E.D.N.Y., Oct 21, 2016).
Air Serv provides cargo, cleaning, ground transportation,
passenger, and security services to the aviation industry.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals in "Kaufman" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that appeals remain
pending in the case Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related
Services.
The Company said, "We are a defendant in a class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs'
principal allegation is that our gift cards violated consumer
protection statutes because consumers allegedly had difficulty
spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior to the
imposition of monthly service fees. The Court preliminarily
certified a settlement class consisting of (with some exceptions)
"all purchasers, recipients and holders of all gift cards issued
by American Express from January 1, 2002 through the date of
preliminary approval of the settlement."
On March 2, 2016, the court granted final approval of the class-
wide settlement. Notices of appeal have been filed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
* * *
The agreement set up a Settlement Fund worth $6,753,269.50, which
was broken down as follows:
$1,224,269.50 for publication and direct mail notice;
$1,525,000 for attorneys' fees ($1,275,000 to lead class
counsel and $250,000 to additional class counsel);
$4,000,000 to satisfy split-tender claims, monthly fee
claims, check issuance fee claims, and attestation claims.
Whatever money was not claimed by the class members from the
$4,000,000 pot was set aside for a cy pres.
American Express also agreed to establish two programs: (1) the
Balance Refund Program; and (2) the Purchase Fee and
Shipping/Handling Fee Waiver Program. The Balance Refund Program
would provide gift card holders with card balances of $25 or less
an opportunity to request a refund of their unused balances
without paying a Check Issuance Fee. The Purchase Fee Program
provided class members the opportunity to purchase a new $100 gift
card without paying an up-front purchase fee ($3.95) or a
shipping/handling fee ($5.95). Both the Balance Refund and
Purchase Fee Programs were to be paid by American Express outside
of the settlement fund and were not capped by any amount.
J.L. Goodman and Carla Santsche filed an objection to the motion
for final approval of the settlement. Goodman and Santsche
objected to the definition of the settlement class, claiming that
the definition was too broad. They also objected based on the
inadequacy of the notice program.
The Final Approval Order provides that plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement is granted. Lead and
additional class counsel's motion for approval of attorneys' fees
is granted in part and denied in part. The court awards
attorneys' fees to lead class counsel in the total amount of
$1,000,000, plus $40,000 in expenses. The court also awards
attorneys' fees to additional class counsel in the total amount of
$250,000. Petition for fees by counsel for Intervenors Goodman
and Santsche is granted in part and denied in part. The court
awards attorneys' fees to counsel for Intervenors Goodman and
Santsche in the total amount of $700,000. Incentive awards are
approved to the representative parties in the amount of $1,000 for
each party. The court approves Consumer Reports/Consumer Union as
the cy pres recipient, and the court denies American Express'
renewed request for reimbursement for the cost of the first round
of notice in the amount of $527,580.27.
The District Court case is SAUL M. KAUFMAN and KIMBERLY STEGICH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES, CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 07-cv-1707 (N.D. Ill.). Judge Joan B.
Gottschall presides over the case.
Counsel to Plaintiff Class:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
James M. Smith, Esq.
Bock & Hatch LLC
134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Counsel to Defendant:
Stephen J. Newman, Esq.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Additional information is available at:
https://kaufmanclassactionsettlement.com/
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Plumbers Union's Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund remains pending.
On July 30, 2015, plaintiff Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137
Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of
American Express stock, filed a suit, captioned Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v. American Express Co.,
Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell, for violation of
federal securities law, alleging that the Company deliberately
issued false and misleading statements to, and omitted important
information from, the public relating to the financial importance
of the Costco cobrand relationship to the Company, including, but
not limited to, the decision to accelerate negotiations to renew
the cobrand agreement. The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive
relief. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 21, 2016.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motions to Dismiss "Houssain" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that motions to
dismiss the case Houssain v. American Express Company, et al.,
remains pending.
On October 16, 2015, a putative class action, captioned Houssain
v. American Express Company, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
relating to disclosures of the Costco cobrand relationship.
On May 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
certain officers of the Company as defendants and alleging that
the defendants violated certain ERISA fiduciary obligations by,
among other things, allowing the investment of American Express
Retirement Savings Plan (Plan) assets in American Express common
stock when American Express common stock was not a prudent
investment and misrepresenting and failing to disclose material
facts to Plan participants in connection with the administration
of the Plan. The amended complaint seeks, among other remedies, an
unspecified amount of damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on May 31, 2016.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement in "Lopez" Action Granted Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a California
court on October 17, 2016, granted final approval of the
settlement in the "Lopez" class action lawsuit.
In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a
class of California American Express Card Members whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased.
On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide
complaint and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement of the claims alleged in that complaint. The settlement
provides for certain relief to class members, attorneys' fees and
costs of up to $6 million.
The case is known as Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB,
et al., case no. CV 09-07335 SJO (MANx)(C.D. Cal.). The Hon. S.
James Otero oversees the case. The Defendants are American
Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank.
American Express will pay up to $6,000,000 into a fund, which will
cover:
-- payments of up to $4,000,000 and not less than $3,500,000
in total to eligible persons in the Settlement Class who submit
timely and valid Claim Forms;
-- an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel
in an amount up to $1,600,000, as approved by the Court;
-- service awards to the Class Representatives in an amount up
to $5,000 each, as approved by the Court; and
-- the costs of providing notice to the Settlement Class and
administering the Settlement.
Any funds that remain unpaid 120 days following the Distribution
Date (as defined in the Settlement) shall be distributed on behalf
of the Settlement Class on a cy pres basis to Consumer Federation
of America's America Saves campaign, or to another mutually
agreeable recipient, which in either case shall be subject to
approval by the Court.
Any amounts remaining in the Settlement Fund following the payment
of valid claims, Settlement Costs and any award of Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees and costs and any incentive awards, including any
amounts attributable to returned checks and checks not cashed
within 120 days following the Distribution Date, shall be
distributed on behalf of the Settlement Class on a cy pres basis
to Consumer Federation of America's America Saves campaign, or to
another mutually agreeable recipient, which in either case shall
be subject to approval by the Court. Payment of the Cy Pres
Distribution shall be made no later than 150 days following the
Distribution Date.
Class Counsel:
Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
Stanley Law Group
6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75206
American Express's Counsel:
Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
2029 Century Park East, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
Additional information on the case is available at:
https://www.aprsettlement.com/
ARCO PLUMBING: Faces "Jeximbiyev" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berik Jeximbiyev and Tohir Kurbanov, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ARCO PLUMBING
AND HEATING, INC., AND ARKADYKUDRYAVSKY A/K/A ARKADY KUDRYASKY,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05892 (E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2016), seeks to
recover compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York State Labor Law.
Defendants operate a plumbing and heating corporation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Phone: (718) 808-2224
E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com
ARENA PHARMA: 9th Cir. Resurrects Weight-Loss Drug Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Ninth Circuit panel on October 26, resurrected claims in
Pasadena, Calif., that a pharmaceutical firm hid concerns from
investors that its weight-loss drug caused cancer in rats prior to
approval by the FDA.
Lead plaintiff Carl Schwartz sued San Diego-based Arena
Pharmaceuticals in 2010, claiming the firm's CEO Jack Lief
publicly touted the impending FDA approval of its weight-loss drug
Lorcaserin without disclosing studies that found the drug may have
caused cancer in rats.
After testing the drug on both animals and humans in 2006 and
2007, Arena reported to the FDA in May 2007 that Lorcaserin caused
cancer in the brains, skin, mammary glands and nervous systems of
rats.
The FDA asked Arena to conduct follow-up studies to test the
company's hypothesis that the cancer was caused by prolactin, a
hormone that has been linked to cancer in rats, and that it did
not pose the same risk to humans, according to the Ninth Circuit
ruling.
In February 2009, Arena completed its final report stating that
its follow-up studies confirmed a connection between prolactin and
the rat cancer.
Before Arena submitted its final application for FDA approval in
December 2009, Lief told investors he was "confident" about
Lorcaserin's imminent approval and that the drug's "long-term
safety" had been demonstrated in part by preclinical trials,
including the rat study.
In September 2010, the FDA published a briefing document on its
website, revealing publicly for the first time the FDA's concerns
about the rat study and the drug's potential to cause cancer in
rats and humans.
Schwartz claimed investors were "caught off guard," "surprised,"
and "completely blindsided" by the revelation, leading Arena's
stock price to plummet 40 percent in one day.
The FDA Advisory Committee declined to approve the drug in a 9-5
vote, before an independent panel of pathologists found Arena had
overreported incidents of tumors in rats. The FDA later approved
Lorcaserin in June 2012, and the drug remains on the market on
October 26.
But Schwartz claims the company misled investors about the rat
study and about the FDA's likeliness to approve the drug in 2009
and 2010.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Jay Bybee found a
federal judge wrongly dismissed the class action in November 2013
by concluding that the firm merely had a "difference of scientific
opinion" with the FDA and that it did not intentionally mislead
investors.
"Arena did more than just express its confidence in Lorcaserin's
future," Bybee wrote. "It affirmatively represented that 'all the
animal studies that [had] been completed' supported Arena's case
for approval. And at the time these statements were made by
various Arena officials in 2009, Arena knew that the animal
studies were the sticking point with the FDA."
Unlike the 2008 dismissal of a securities class action against
AstraZeneca over its new drug application for the blood thinner
Exanta, Bybee said this went beyond a mere "good-faith scientific
disagreement" between a pharmaceutical firm and the FDA.
"Arena could have remained silent about the dispute or it could
have addressed its discussions with the FDA head-on," Bybee wrote
in the 23-page opinion. "But it could not represent that there was
no controversy here because all the data was favorable."
The panel reversed the dismissal of the securities class action
against Arena and remanded the case to the Southern District of
California.
Arena did not immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment
on the ruling on October 26, afternoon.
The case is captioned, Schwartz v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
No. 14-55633 (9th Cir. 2016).
BAKER HUGHES: Delaware Chancery Court Ruled on Counsel's Fee Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Delaware
Chancery Court has ruled on plaintiffs counsel's Fee and Expense
Application.
These lawsuits were filed in Delaware in connection with the
Company's Merger with Halliburton. Subsequent to the filing of the
lawsuits, on April 30, 2016, the Merger Agreement with Halliburton
was terminated:
* On November 24, 2014, Gary Molenda, a purported shareholder
of the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court")
against Baker Hughes, the Company's Board of Directors,
Halliburton, and Red Tiger LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Halliburton ("Red Tiger" and together with all defendants,
"Defendants") styled Gary R. Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10390-CB.
* On November 26, 2014, a second purported shareholder of the
Company, Booth Family Trust, filed a substantially similar class
action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court.
* On December 1, 2014, New Jersey Building Laborers Annuity
Fund and James Rice, two additional purported shareholders of the
Company, filed substantially similar class action lawsuits in
Delaware Chancery Court.
* On December 10, 2014, a fifth purported shareholder of the
Company, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, filed another
substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware
Chancery Court.
* On December 24, 2014, a sixth purported shareholder of the
Company, Annette Shipp, filed another substantially similar class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court.
The Company said, "All of the lawsuits make substantially similar
claims. The plaintiffs generally allege that the members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
our shareholders in connection with the Merger negotiations by
entering into the Merger Agreement and by approving the Merger,
and that the Company, Halliburton, and Red Tiger aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. More specifically,
the lawsuits allege that the Merger Agreement provides inadequate
consideration to our shareholders, that the process resulting in
the Merger Agreement was flawed, that the Company's directors
engaged in self-dealing, and that certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement improperly favor Halliburton and Red Tiger, precluding
or impeding third parties from submitting potentially superior
proposals, among other things. The lawsuit filed by Annette Shipp
also alleges that our Board of Directors failed to disclose
material information concerning the proposed Merger in the
preliminary registration statement on Form S-4."
"On January 7, 2015, James Rice amended his complaint, adding
similar allegations regarding the disclosures in the preliminary
registration statement on Form S-4. The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, and rescission of
the Merger Agreement, among other relief. On January 23, 2015,
the Delaware lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re
Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10390-CB (the "Consolidated Case").
"Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015, which alleges
substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar
relief to that raised in the six individual complaints, except
that while Baker Hughes is named as a defendant, no claims are
asserted against the Company.
"On March 18, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Consolidated Case in exchange for the Company making
certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained
in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2015. The settlement
was made subject to certain conditions, including consummation of
the Merger, final documentation, and court approval. With the
termination of the Merger Agreement with Halliburton, the March
18, 2015 settlement agreement is rendered null and void.
"On May 31, 2016, the Consolidated Case and the claims asserted
therein were dismissed, save and except for plaintiffs counsel's
Fee and Expense Application to the Delaware Chancery Court. On
October 13, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court ruled on plaintiffs
counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The amount awarded does not
have a material impact on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."
BAKER HUGHES: Still Defends "Williams" Action in North Dakota
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a class and
collective action lawsuit alleging that the Company failed to pay
a nationwide class of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair
Labor Standards Act and North Dakota law was filed on April 30,
2015, titled Williams et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.
On February 8, 2016, the Court conditionally certified certain
subclasses of employees for collective action treatment.
"We are evaluating the background facts and at this time cannot
predict the outcome of this lawsuit and are not able to reasonably
estimate the potential impact, if any, such outcome would have on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."
* * *
On Oct. 13, 2016, a Status Conference re: Discovery Dispute was
held before Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal.
The case is, Jonathan G. Williams v. Baker Hughes Oilfield
Operations, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00049 (D. N.Dak.). Judge Ralph
R Erickson presides over the case.
Williams is represented by:
Steven A. Smith, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Brittany Bachman Skemp, Esq.
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Nichols Kaster, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
E-mail: smith@nka.com
cengstrom@nka.com
bskemp@nka.com
lukas@nka.com
Baker Hughes is represented by:
DeAndrea C. Washington, Esq.
Gabrielle S. Moses, Esq.
Daniel N. Lenhoff, Esq.
Michael J. Muskat, Esq.
Muskat, Martinez & Mahony, LLP
1201 Louisiana St #850
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: 713-987-7850
E-mail: DWashington@m3law.com
GMoses@m3law.com
DLenhoff@m3law.com
MMuskat@m3law.com
BANK OF NEW YORK: "Beverly" Asserts Homeowners' Rights Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA BEVERLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF
THE CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-16, a New
York corporation, DITECH FINANCIAL LLC FKA GREEN TREE SERVICING, a
Delaware limited liability company, MTC FINANCIAL INC. DBA TRUSTEE
CORPS, a California corporation, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01928 (C.D. Cal., October 21, 2016), alleges Violation
of the Homeowner Bill of Rights, wrongful foreclosure, violation
of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of
the Unfair Competition Law, and Violation of the Unfair
Competition Law.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON -- https://www.bnymellon.com/ --
provides commercial banking and other financial services to
corporations and individuals.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
Hannah P. Belknap, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
Phone: (877) 500-8780
Fax: (877) 500-8781
Email: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
Email: hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com
- and -
David N. Lake, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE, APC
16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 788-5100
Fax: (818) 788-5199
Email: david@lakelawpc.com
BENORE LOGISTIC: Perkins Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE PERKINS, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. BENORE LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-13717-
AJT-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 19, 2016), seeks relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Perkins brings claims under the collective action provision of
the FLSA, on behalf of herself and a nationwide class of
transportation coordinators employed by Benore Logistic within
three years of the filing of this Complaint who were not paid
overtime premium pay at the rate of time and one-half the regular
rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Based in Erie, Michigan, Benore Logistic Systems, Inc. is a
privately-held company incorporated in Michigan. Benore Logistic
is a third party logistics provider of supply chain services and
integrated logistics solutions. Benore Logistic employs
transportation coordinators to communicate the assigned
prescheduled route plans, trucks and equipment to its drivers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
9 Paradies Lane
New Paltz, NY 12561
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com
- and -
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
BIOGEN INC: Electrical Workers File Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated parties, Plaintiff, v. STUART "TONY" A.
KINGSLEY, GEORGE A. SCANGOS, PAUL C. CLANCY, and BIOGEN INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-12101 (D. Mass., October 20, 2016),
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act in relation to
public statements made by Defendants, specifically regarding the
significant problems the drug Tecfidera experienced in the
marketplace.
Biogen Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops therapies
for neurological, autoimmune and hematologic disorders.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Garrett J. Bradley, Esq.
Andrea M. Landry, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 720-1333
Fax: (617) 720-2445
Email: gbradley@tenlaw.com
alandry@tenlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 907-0700
Fax: (212) 818-0477
Email: jgardner@labaton.com
gbuell@labaton.com
BIOGEN INC: Dismissal of Securities Case Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Biogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal of the securities class action lawsuit.
The Company said, "We and certain current and former officers are
defendants in In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, filed by a
shareholder on August 18, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The amended complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C. Sec.78j(b)
and Sec.78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Sec.240.10b-5. The lead plaintiff
sought a declaration of the action as a class action,
certification as a representative of the class and its counsel as
class counsel, and an award of damages, interest and attorneys'
fees. On July 1, 2016 the U.S. District Court dismissed the case
and in September 2016 denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the
order of dismissal. The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. An
estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time."
The Company also said, "We and certain current and former officers
are also defendants in an action filed by another shareholder on
October 20, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, designated as related to the matter described above
and assigned to the same judge. The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Sec.78j(b) and
Sec.78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Sec.240.10b-5 and seeks a declaration of
the action as a class action and an award of damages, interest and
attorneys' fees. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time."
C. R. BARD: Class Action Over Hernia Product Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of September
30, 2016, approximately 30 federal and 80 state lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 105 plaintiffs, as well as one
putative class action in the United States, are currently pending
against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and
certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the
"Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain
sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in
December 2005.
In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently,
other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped
accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014.
As of September 30, 2016, all but one of the putative class
actions pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining
putative class action pending against the company has not been
certified and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory
damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect
and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees.
In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three
putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded
by the company. Approximately 60 of the state lawsuits, involving
individual claims by approximately 60 plaintiffs, are pending in
the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the
remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product
Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.
The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia
Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in
principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the
settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In
addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation. The company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company
cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia
Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.
C. R. BARD: Health Product Claims by 10,110 Plaintiffs Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of September
30, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims
by approximately 10,110 plaintiffs are currently pending against
the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the
company's surgical continence products for women, which includes
products manufactured by both the company and two subsidiaries of
Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc)
("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company. Medtronic has an
obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any
product defect liability.
In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic
regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation. In addition, five putative class actions in the United
States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed
against the company, and a limited number of other claims have
been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The
foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class
actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled
or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to
settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health
Product Claims".
The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative
class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in one Canadian putative class action. In March 2016, the company
reached an agreement in principle to resolve all Canadian putative
class actions, with the exception of a Quebec class action, within
amounts previously recorded by the company. The company expects
administration of those settlements to take place over the next
several quarters.
In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV District
Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits
involving all women's surgical continence products that are
manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a
state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted
in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million.
On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in
November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the
California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on
February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest
and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts
previously recorded by the company.
The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in
a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million, which
was upheld by the Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. The company
does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are
representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product
Claims.
On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV District Court
ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300
individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial
Orders") (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre-
Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related
defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and
continuing through the second quarter of 2015.
In February 2015, the WV District Court appointed a Special Master
to assist with settlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV
District Court issued an order staying the requirement to prepare
a significant portion of the cases covered by the WHP Pre-Trial
Orders, which stay could be modified at the court's discretion.
The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional cost in
future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. The WV
District Court may also order that the company prepare additional
cases for trial, which could result in material additional costs
in future periods.
As of September 30, 2016, the company reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling
approximately 9,860 Women's Health Product Claims, including
approximately: 560 during 2014, 6,285 during 2015 and 3,015 during
2016.
The company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which have not been included in the approximate number of
lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each
agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements
for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum
number of plaintiffs.
The company continues to engage in discussions with other
plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled
Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional
inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts,
the company anticipates additional trials over the next 12 months.
In addition, one or more possible consolidated trials may occur in
the future.
In July 2015, as part of the agreement noted above, Medtronic
agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain
of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products
distributed by the company under supply agreements with Medtronic
and the company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these
potential settlements. The company also may, in its sole
discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional
Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The
agreement does not resolve the dispute between the company and
Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do
not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the
company agreed to dismiss without prejudice their previously filed
litigation with respect to Medtronic's obligation to defend and
indemnify the company.
The approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first
paragraph of this section does not include approximately 655
generic complaints involving women's health products where the
company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints,
determine whether any of those cases involve the company's women's
health products.
In addition, the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the
first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 980
claims that have been threatened against the company but for which
complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has
limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these and
other unfiled or unknown claims. During the course of engaging in
settlement discussions with plaintiffs' law firms, the company has
learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information
regarding these and other unfiled or unknown claims, or other
lawsuits, which could materially impact the company's estimate of
the number of claims or lawsuits against the company.
While the company continues to engage in discussions with other
plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled
Women's Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the
Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, including
through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the
resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect
on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.
C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 1,055 Plaintiffs Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of September
30, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims
by approximately 1,055 plaintiffs are currently pending against
the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena
cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").
In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for
all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the
District of Arizona. There are approximately 1,005 Filter Product
Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC
Filter MDL. The remaining approximately 50 Filter Product Claims
are pending in various state courts. In March 2016, a Canadian
class action was filed against the company in Quebec. In April
2016 and May 2016, Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario
and British Columbia, respectively.
The approximate number of lawsuits set forth above does not
include approximately 40 claims that have been threatened against
the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In
addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature
and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. The
company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future
periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or
unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the company.
The company expects that additional trials of Filter Product
Claims may take place over the next 12 months. While the company
intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a
material adverse effect on the company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.
CENTERVIEW PARTNERS: Faces "Appel" Suit in Delaware Chancery Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centerview Partners
LLC. The case is entitled Stephen Appel, the Plaintiff, v. Robert
Wolf David Palmer, Centerview Partners LLC, David J. Berkman,
Stephen J Cloobeck, Richard M Daley, Frankie Sue Del Papa, Jeffrey
W Jones, Hope S Taitz, Zachary D Warren, and New Castle County,
Sheriff, the Defendants, Case No. 12844-VCMR (Del. Chancery Ct.,
Oct. 21, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Tamika Montgomery-
Reeves.
Centerview Partners is an American independent investment banking
and private equity investment firm.
The lawsuit is a class action complaint for breach of fiduciary
duties.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter B Andrews, Esq.
Springer, Craig J, Esq.
David Sborz, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
3801 Kennett Pike Bldg C Ste 305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 504 4957
Facsimile: (302) 397 2681
E-mail: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
CHRYSLER GROUP: "Garcia" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Javier R. Garcia, individually and
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Chrysler Group LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, the Defendant, Gabriella Tatum, Jamie Meyer, and Denise
Shephard, the Interested Parties, Case No. 2:12-cv-01797, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-06096-MEJ to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James.
Chrysler is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer registered in
the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K. for tax
purposes.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
HARRIS AND RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962 3777
Facsimile: (323) 962 3004
E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
- and -
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER
& GRAIFMAN, P.C.
210 Summit Avenue
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (201) 391 7000
Facsimile: (201) 307 1086
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathleen N. Fennelly, Esq.
Thomas R. Curtin, Esq.
GRAHAM, CURTIN, PA
4 Headquarters Plaza
Po Box 1991
Morristown, NJ 07962-1991
Telephone: (973) 292 1700
Facsimile: (973) 292 1767
E-mail: kfennelly@grahamcurtin.com
tcurtin@grahamcurtin.com
The Interested Parties are represented by:
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Carella Byrne, Esq.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994 1700
E-mail: ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
DAIRY FARMERS: $50-Mil. Settlement Offer Rejected
-------------------------------------------------
Zack Huffman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
unhappy with a $52 million settlement offer, representatives from
over 115 dairy farms took Dairy Farmers of America and its
marketing agency back to court on claims of antitrust violations.
DFA, which produces one-fifth of all milk in the United States,
controlled the supply of dairy products by acquiring production
facilities and liquidating them to inflate the cost of milk,
without passing along any of the profits to its member farmers,
according to the class-action lawsuit originally filed in 2011.
A group of farmers who rejected a proposed $52 million settlement
from earlier this year have resurrected their claims in a new
lawsuit filed on October 26, in Vermont federal court.
In addition to DFA, the new complaint also names Dairy Marketing
Services as a defendant. DMS is controlled by DFA and markets milk
for more than 5,500 farms in the Northeast, the farmers say.
"Since the class action complaint, the defendants' vice-grip on
Northeast milk industry has tightened and choked some of the last
remaining vestiges of competition," said the complaint.
"Defendants' acquisition appetite remains unsatiated."
The complaint also alleges that DFA pressured it members to accept
the settlement after only receiving three letters of support from
among thousands of dairy producers in 2014.
The farmers claim that DFA inspectors were sent on unscheduled
"special trips" to thousands of dairy farms to coerce the farmers
into signing onto the settlement agreement in 2015, resulting in
over 1,200 letters of support.
One of the stipulations of the settlement allowed members of the
class who were dissatisfied with the outcome to opt out of the
deal and pursue a case against the defendants on their own, which
is what the plaintiffs did. Through numerous acquisitions and
purchases of stakes, the DFA partially controls the dairy
processing facilities that its own members sell their raw milk to,
essentially controlling the prices that farmers are able to
receive, the plaintiffs claim.
"Instead of distributing the money back to its members, DF A/DMS
use complex accounting and opaque financial records to keep the
money for their executives and their cronies," October 26 lawsuit
states. "As a result, DFA keeps hundreds of millions of dollars
earned off the backs of its member-owners, which breaches its
duties and its promise to act in the best interest of its members
and provide its members with a return on investments made on their
behalf."
DFA was formed in 1998 when four regional dairy cooperatives
decided to merge to create a national organization. By 2015, the
DFA had a stake in 77 dairy processing facilities across the
country, according to the complaint. By 2016, DFA was producing
approximately 46 billion pounds of milk, accounting for 20 percent
of the total production in the US. The group also markets about 30
percent of the total milk production in the country.
In 1999, the DFA, Dairylea and St. Albans Cooperative Creamery
formed DMS, a joint venture that is technically controlled by the
DFA, according to the complaint. The plaintiff farmers seek a
court order divesting DFA of milk processing and balancing plants
"to restore competition in the Northeast."
They are represented by Gary Franklin -- gfranklin@primmer.com --
of Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer in Burlington, Vt., and by:
William Nystrom, Esq.
Joel Beckman, Esq.
Dana Zakarian, Esq.
Elizabeth Reidy, Esq.
Nystrom Beckman & Paris
1 Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02210
Tel: 617-778-9100
E-mail: wnystrom@nbparis.com
jbeckman@nbparis.com
dzakarian@nbparis.com
ereidy@nbparis.com
DFA did not immediately respond on October 28, to an emailed
request for comment.
DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, Ariz. Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Alvarez, Plaintiff, v. Direct Energy Business Marketing,
LLC, Direct Energy Business, LLC, dba DE Business, LLC, Direct
Energy Services, LLC, Direct Energy Contact Center, Clockwork
Acquisition II, Inc., Direct Energy Leasing, LLC, fka HWOA, LLC,
Direct Energy US Home Services, Inc., dba DE Direct Energy US Home
Services, Inc., Direct Energy Marketing, Inc., Centrica Connect
Home US, Inc., Centrica Holdco GP, LLC, Centrica Holdco, Inc.,
Centrica US Holdings, Inc., Home Warranty of America, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03657-SPL (D. Ariz., October 21,
2016), seeks to recover individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, alleged unpaid compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Statute.
Direct Energy provides energy related services to more than six
million residential and commercial customers throughout the United
States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 274-1100
E-mail: tfrankel@bffb.com
- and -
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 756-7748
E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
DS SERVICES: "Loo" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Barbara Loo, individually, on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. DS Services of America, Inc.; Costco
Wholesale Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:16-cv-
05942-DMR (August 2, 2016) was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California and assigned Case no. 6:16-cv-
01572.
The case alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
compensation as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 277-7235
Fax: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 256-3200
Fax: (612) 215-6870
- and -
Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
Drew G. Johnson, Esq.
LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC
44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: (541) 345-2376
Fax: (541) 345-2377
E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com
drew@leimanlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Catherine M. Dacre, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission St., Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Fax: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com
- and -
John Baird Dudrey, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
760 SW 9th Avenue, Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205-2584
Phone: (503) 224-3380
Fax: (503) 220-2480
E-mail: john.dudrey@stoel.com
- and -
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Fax: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com
- and -
Victor Joseph Kisch, Esq.
TONKON TORP LLP
1600 Pioneer Tower
888 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 802-2032
E-mail: victor@tonkon.com
E. I. DU PONT: Appeals Verdict in 2 Drinking Water Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that four
actions related to contaminated drinking water have been resolved
and two that were tried to a verdict have been or will be
appealed.
DuPont used PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its
salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to
manufacture some fluoropolymer resins at various sites around the
world including its Washington Works plant in West Virginia.
In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.
DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project. The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were
conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.
The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.
In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.
In January 2012, the company established and put $1 million into
an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the
settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the balance
in the escrow amount must be at least $0.5 million; as a result,
transfers of additional funds may be required periodically.
The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established
the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and
the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account; at September 30, 2016, less than $1 million has been
disbursed. While it is probable that the company will incur
liabilities related to funding the medical monitoring program,
such liabilities cannot be reasonably estimated due to
uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible
class members and the scope of testing.
In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.
Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At September 30, 2016 and
December 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending
in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia.
These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation (MDL)
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the
Court). DuPont, through Chemours, denies the allegations in these
lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. As a result of
plaintiffs' corrected pleadings and further discovery, in the
first quarter 2016, the company revised downward to 30 the
estimated number of the pending lawsuits that allege wrongful
death.
In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual
trial. One of these six cases was voluntarily withdrawn by
plaintiffs. In the first case tried to verdict, captioned Bartlett
v. DuPont, in October 2015, the jury awarded $1.6 million in
compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff
alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water had caused kidney
cancer. DuPont is appealing the decision.
The second matter selected for trial, Wolf v. DuPont, involved
allegations that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused
ulcerative colitis; prior to trial, a confidential settlement for
an immaterial amount was reached in the first quarter 2016. Two
cases alleging that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused
kidney cancer were settled in the second quarter 2016, for amounts
immaterial individually and in the aggregate.
In the second case to be tried to a verdict, Freeman v. DuPont,
the plaintiff alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water
caused testicular cancer. In July 2016, the jury awarded $5.1
million in compensatory damages plus $0.5 million in punitive
damages and attorneys' fees. The company is appealing the
decision.
As a result, four of the six cases have been resolved and the two
that were tried to a verdict have been or will be appealed.
In January 2016, the Court determined that 40 cases asserting
cancer claims, to be identified by plaintiffs' attorneys, would be
scheduled for trial through 2017. In July 2016, the Court
scheduled the first case for trial in November 2016 and the second
case for trial in January 2017. In both of these cases, plaintiffs
allege that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused testicular
cancer and high cholesterol. The Court announced that the
remaining 38 trials would be scheduled to begin each week starting
in May 2017.
An approximate breakdown of the about 3,500 lawsuits still pending
in the MDL is shown below:
Alleged Injury Number of Claims
Kidney cancer 200
Testicular cancer 70
Ulcerative colitis 300
Preeclampsia 200
Thyroid disease 1,430
High cholesterol 1,340
This type of litigation could take place over many years and
interim results do not predict the final outcome of cases. While
DuPont believes it is probable that it could incur liabilities
related to the lawsuits still pending in the MDL beyond the
settlements discussed above, a range of such liabilities cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time. Given the wide range of
outcomes associated with the six initial cases in the MDL as
discussed above, including two cases that have been or will be
appealed, the company does not believe activity to date provides a
reasonable basis to derive a range of loss for the remaining
lawsuits still pending in the MDL in total or by category of
claim. The possible range of loss is unpredictable and involves
significant uncertainty due to the uniqueness of the remaining,
individual plaintiff's claims and the company's defenses to those
claims both as to potential liability and damages on an individual
claims basis, among other factors.
The Court has ordered the parties to participate in confidential,
nonbinding mediation regarding global resolution of the MDL. This
process is ongoing.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Deny Class Cert. in "Beeman" Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company is awaiting the court's ruling on a motion to deny class
certification in the case, Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et
al.
Plaintiffs allege that ESI and the other defendants failed to
comply with statutory obligations to provide California clients
with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug prices and
have filed a motion for class certification. In March 2014, after
rejecting defendants' objections regarding plaintiffs' lack of
standing and certain constitutionality issues, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.
On August 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to deny class
certification. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the
motion on September 16, 2016 and defendants filed a reply in
support of the motion on October 3, 2016. A hearing on the motion
to deny class certification was held on October 17, 2016 and the
Company awaits the court's ruling.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify "Brady" Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that ESI's
motion to decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case
remains pending.
In the cases, Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., and North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v.
Express Scripts, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Currently, ESI's motion to
decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case is pending. Oral
arguments were held in January 2012.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Amended Complaint Filed in Pension Fund Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Lead
Plaintiff has filed an amended class action complaint in the case,
Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Express
Scripts Holding Company, et al.
Plaintiff filed this putative securities class action complaint on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock between
February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016 and alleges the Company and
named individuals violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by carrying out a scheme to defraud
the investing public. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in
favor of Plaintiff and other class members, attorneys' fees and
costs, and equitable relief (for purposes of this Note 8,
"Securities Action").
On July 27, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On August
15, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer venue to the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, which was fully
briefed as of September 8, 2016. On October 14, 2016, Lead
Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Defends Anthem ERISA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend the case, In re Express Scripts/Anthem
ERISA Litigation (consolidated the following cases on August 1,
2016: John Doe One and John Doe Two v. Express Scripts, Inc.,
filed May 6, 2016, and Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert
Shullich v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc., filed June 24,
2016).
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on behalf of health plan beneficiaries who are enrolled
in health care plans that are insured or administered by Anthem.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Anthem breached fiduciary
duties and otherwise violated their legal obligations under ERISA,
that ESI engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and other racketeering
activity through its invoicing system with Anthem, that ESI
breached its contract with Anthem, that plaintiffs are entitled to
equitable relief under theories including unjust enrichment, that
ESI violated unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, that
Anthem breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied in health plans, and that ESI violated the anti-
discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, declaratory relief, equitable relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.
FACEBOOK INC: Hearing Held on Suit Over Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, proclaimed on October 27,
that the nation's Founding Fathers have little insight to offer on
whether the Constitution allows people to sue Facebook for
collecting their biometric facial data without consent.
"A couple of justices are focused on what happened 200 years ago,"
U.S. District Judge James Donato said during a hearing on a motion
to dismiss a privacy class action against Facebook.
"What opinion does George Washington have on this? There are
historical realties that simply don't overlap."
Donato was responding to an argument from Facebook attorney Lauren
Goldman, who said the Supreme Court's recent decision in Spokeo v.
Robins made clear that plaintiffs cannot sue unless they show they
suffered a concrete injury, as the Founding Fathers intended in
Article III of the Constitution.
The Spokeo ruling, issued in May, held that individuals lack
standing to sue entities such as the internet search engine
Spokeo, which posted inaccurate information about a Virginia man
in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, unless they suffer
actual harm as a result of a statutory violation.
"Spokeo impresses me for its utter lack of novelty," Judge Donato
said on October 27. "These are all Article III standing tests.
It's old law just restated, nothing novel about it."
Facebook sought to dismiss three consolidated class actions
brought by Facebook users in Illinois, and another class action
from a non-Facebook user in California. The lawsuits claim the
social networks' analyzing and storing of facial data for its
"Photo Tag Suggest" function violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
The Illinois law, enacted in 2008, prohibits collecting or
disclosing biometric data, such as an iris or retina scan,
fingerprint, voiceprint, hand scan or facial geometry, without a
person's permission.
Donato in May refused to dismiss the class action or grant
Facebook's motion for summary judgment , finding the facial
geometry of individuals derived from photo scans is a piece of
biometric data protected under the Illinois law.
During the October 27 hearing, class attorney Rafey Balabanian
told the judge that Spokeo did not create "some rule" that a
statutory violation requires a "real world injury" or "economic
harm" in order to establish standing.
"I'm with you on that," Donato said. "You can have an intangible
injury."
But Goldman countered that plaintiffs must show they suffered some
injury to press their claims in federal court.
"It's not enough to say my privacy has been violated," Goldman
said. "You have to say how it was violated. What information of
yours was shared with the world and how were you harmed by that?"
Goldman argued that because Facebook never disclosed the biometric
facial data to the outside world, no concrete injury could be
alleged.
Balabanian replied that his clients have a right to control their
biometric information, as codified by the Illinois privacy law.
"A person's identity is a property right," he said.
Facebook's failure to notify users or seek permission when it
started harvesting biometric facial data in 2010 clearly violates
the Illinois privacy law, Balabanian said.
Although Donato indicated that he believes people can suffer an
injury from the unpermitted collection of biometric facial data,
he struggled to get Balabanian to define precisely what that
injury was.
The judge said the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint emphasizes
loss of valuable information, rather than focusing on the injury
or injuries suffered from an unpermitted invasion of privacy.
Donato said he does not believe biometric data is necessarily
valuable.
Balabanian returned to his argument that the Illinois Legislature
created a law specifically to protect people's privacy and to
ensure their biometric data would not be harvested without their
consent.
"State legislatures do not grant the jurisdiction of this court,"
Donato replied. "The mere fact that the Legislature said 'X' in
Illinois doesn't answer the Article III question. It can't just be
said that if a state law was violated, you have a concrete
injury."
Donato said that if he does rule for Facebook's motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction, he will likely remand two of the class
actions, which originated in state court in Illinois and
California, back to those state jurisdictions.
In the meantime, he refused to stay further action in the lawsuits
and asked both parties to continue gathering evidence in
preparation for a jury trial.
Balabanian is with Edelson PC in San Francisco.
Goldman is with Mayer Brown in New York City.
The case is captioned, IN RE FACEBOOK BIOMETRIC INFORMATION
PRIVACY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS
Master Docket No.: 3:15-CV-03747-JD (N.D.Cal.).
Counsel for Defendant Facebook, Inc.:
John Nadolenco, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone: (213) 229-9500
E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2647
E-mail: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
Telephone: (202) 263-3328
E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
FCA US: "Harbin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2477
----------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Transfer Order of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, the case captioned EDITH and GLEN
HARBIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, 2:16-cv-13693-DML-DRG (M.D. Tenn., July 29, 2016) was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan for consolidated pretrial proceedings, according to a
case docket dated October 17, 2016. The case was consolidated in
MDL 2744.
The suit alleges that FCA replaced the traditional gearshift in
its 2014-15 Jeep Grand Cherokees, 2012-14 Dodge Chargers, and
2012-14 Chrysler 300 sedans with a joystick and failed to consider
the implications to consumer safety.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: 865-247-0080
Fax: 865-533-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-346-2222
Fax: 312-346-0022
E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
aek@wexlerwallace.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 North Franklin St., 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: 813.223.5505
Fax: 813-223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
FITBIT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Robb" Class Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco denied on October 26, Fitbit's request to dismiss a
class action shareholders complaint that it misrepresented its
fitness tracking devices during its May 2015 IPO, which raised
$416 million; the share price fell from $30.96 to $13.99 this
year.
The case is captioned, BRIAN H. ROBB, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT INC.,
et al., Defendants., Case No. 16-cv-00151-SI (N.D.Cal.).
FLIGHT SERVICES: Cook et al. Seek to Recover Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY COOK, KERIONNA BRADLEY, KENNEDY PRADER, DARION WINTERS,
TERRANCE BRUSTER, DONALD JOHNSON, CHRISTIAN FLORES, DAMON
PERRILLOUX, II, OLIVIA JOHNSON, LANISHA BRUSTER, RASHARD JOHNSON,
HOLDINE PABLO, DARIOEN BUCHANAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FLIGHT SERVICES &
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-15759 (E.D. La.,
October 21, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage
and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, INC. provides services to airlines at
numerous airports across the United States.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher L. Williams
WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
New Orleans, LA 70113
Phone: 504.308.1438
Fax: 504.308.1446
Email: chris@williamslitigation.com
- and -
Michael T. Tusa, Jr., Esq.
SUTTON, ALKER & RATHER, LLC
4080 Lonesome Road, Suite A
Mandeville, LA 70448
Phone: (985) 727-7501
Fax: (985) 727-7505
Email: mtusa@sutton-alker.com
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: "Wilkerson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Wilkerson, Bobby Christian, and Dean Kanoe v. Flotek
Industries, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-01200-W (W.D. Ok., October 14,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, as "Field Sales and Service Technician", and
others similarly situated, regularly worked longer than 40 hours
per workweek and were not paid overtime compensation for work
exceeding 40 hours per workweek at the rate of not less than one
and one half times the regular rate.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant and bring this
action on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly
situated within the meaning of Section 16(b) of the FLSA.
Flotek Industries, Inc. provides services to oil and gas well
sites in Oklahoma and other states.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff A. Taylor, Esq.
THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK
5613 N. Classen Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 286-1600
Facsimile: (405) 842-6132
FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Faces "Humphery" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY HUMPHERY on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-03474-TLW (D.S.C., October 24, 2016),
alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime at the rate of time
and one half the Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendant Fluor Enterprises, Inc. is an engineering, procurement,
and construction company that employs workers throughout the
United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 523-0001
Fax: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com
- and -
Joshua D. Christian, Esq.
1007 E. Washington St.
P.O. Box. 332
Greenville, SC 29601
Phone: (864) 232-7363
Fax: (864) 370-3731
GALDERMA LABORATORIES: "Greenberg" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrea Greenberg, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Galderma Laboratories, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. RG16831799,
was removed from the Superior Court County of Alameda, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
06090-EDL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.
Galderma Laboratories manufactures, markets and/or distributes
more than 34 drugs in the U.S.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abigail Dana Blodgett, Esq.
Howard Judd Hirsch, Esq.
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
503 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 913 7800
Facsimile: (415) 759 4112
E-mail: ablodgett@lexlawgroup.com
hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
Keri Elizabeth Borders, Esq.
Rebecca Bari Johns, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone: (213) 229 9509
Facsimile: (213) 576 8121
E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
KBorders@mayerbrown.com
RJohns@mayerbrown.com
GENERAL MOTORS: 117 Class Suits Pending in US & Canada at Oct. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that through October
19, 2016, the Company was aware of 100 putative class actions
pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in
the U.S. and 17 putative class actions pending in various
Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that consumers who purchased
or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors
Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the
recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions
associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general,
these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain damage or damages
related to alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as
punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. There are
also two civil actions brought by state governmental entities
relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief as well
as civil penalties and attorneys' fees for alleged violations of
state laws.
Through October 19, 2016, the Company was aware of 286 actions
pending in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and
18 actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging
injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of
recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In general,
these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief.
The Company said, "In 2014 we announced various recalls relating
to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls
included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under
certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run" position
to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of
power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the
event of a crash."
"Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) has issued orders from time to time directing
that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal
lawsuits involving faulty or allegedly faulty ignition switches or
other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in 2014
be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court,
the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation).
Through October 19, 2016 the JPML has transferred 306 pending
cases to, and consolidated them with, the multidistrict
litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties to the
multidistrict litigation engage from time to time in discussions
of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation. Since
September 17, 2015 we have reached various agreements with certain
personal injury claimants regarding possible settlement of their
claims.
"In order to facilitate the resolution of the multidistrict
litigation, the Southern District of New York (the district court)
scheduled six cases involving personal injury for bellwether
trials in 2016 (i.e., trials designed to be representative of the
group of personal injury cases in the multidistrict litigation).
Through October 19, 2016 two of the cases set for bellwether
trials were dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiffs. In a third
bellwether trial, a jury returned a verdict finding that GM was
not liable to the plaintiffs. In the remaining three federal cases
set for bellwether trials in 2016, GM and the plaintiffs entered
into confidential settlement agreements to resolve those cases
prior to trial. The district court has scheduled additional
personal injury bellwether trials for 2017 and 2018. In addition
to the federal bellwether trials, a Texas state court
administering a Texas state court multidistrict litigation
scheduled two bellwether trials in August and September 2016. In
the first case, tried in August 2016, a jury returned a verdict
finding that GM was not liable to the plaintiffs. In the second
case, the Texas state court granted summary judgment to GM and
dismissed plaintiff's case before the trial commenced. Each
bellwether trial will be tried on its facts and the result of any
subsequent bellwether trial may be different from the earlier
bellwether trials.
"On July 15, 2016 the district court overseeing the federal
multidistrict litigation issued a ruling on GM's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint seeking damages for alleged economic losses
relating to the ignition switch and other recalls by GM in 2014.
The district court granted GM's motion in part and denied it in
part. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims brought
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and
those brought by any plaintiff whose vehicle was not allegedly
defective when sold. The district court also rejected plaintiffs'
broadest theory of damages -- that plaintiffs could seek recovery
for alleged reduction in the value of their vehicles due to damage
to GM's reputation and brand as a result of the ignition switch
matter. The district court also held that plaintiffs did not have
a common basis for their claims across all defects and models to
proceed as a single class, and that the remaining claims may have
to proceed individually or in subclasses of vehicles affected by a
common defect.
"Further, the district court held that the named plaintiffs may
assert claims only on behalf of owners of the same vehicle models
that they themselves purchased (or leased) or models with
sufficiently similar defects, and that it will not specify the
specific permissible class claims until the class-certification
stage. Finally, the district court granted GM's motion to dismiss
with respect to certain state law claims but denied it as to other
state law claims. The court held that the viability of state law
claims will depend on each state's specific laws and plaintiffs'
specific factual allegations. While the ruling is limited to post-
bankruptcy claims, we believe the district court's legal holdings
rejecting plaintiffs' broadest damages theory and dismissing
certain other claims should apply to similarly limit plaintiffs'
pre-bankruptcy claims. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint, amending their economic
loss claims.
"Because many plaintiffs in the actions described . . . are suing
over the conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles
manufactured by that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed
by GM, we moved to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order
and Injunction (2009 Sale Order) issued by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy
Court) to preclude claims from being asserted against us for,
among other things, personal injuries based on pre-sale accidents,
any economic-loss claims based on acts or conduct of General
Motors Corporation and claims asserting successor liability for
obligations owed by General Motors Corporation (successor
liability claims).
"On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision
precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims
based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and
successor liability claims, except for claims asserting
liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009
Sale Agreement, and claims that could be asserted against us only
if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own
independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts
or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs appealed the
Bankruptcy Court's decision and we cross appealed with respect to
certain issues to preserve our rights.
"On July 13, 2016 a three judge panel of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued a
decision and judgment affirming in part, reversing in part, and
vacating portions of the Bankruptcy Court's April 15, 2015
decision and subsequent judgment. Among other things, the Second
Circuit held that the 2009 Sale Order could not be enforced to bar
claims against GM asserted by either plaintiffs who purchased used
vehicles after the sale closing or against purchasers who asserted
claims relating to the ignition switch defect, including pre-
closing personal injury claims and economic loss claims. The
Second Circuit also vacated that portion of the Bankruptcy Court
judgment enforcing the 2009 Sale Order against plaintiffs with
pre-sale claims based on defects other than the ignition switch
and remanded that issue to the Bankruptcy Court for further
proceedings. The Second Circuit denied our request for an en banc
review of the panel's decision and judgment and we now intend to
appeal the Second Circuit's decision to the United States Supreme
Court.
"In 2014, GM voluntarily established the Ignition Switch Recall
Compensation Program, administered by an independent
administrator, which provided compensation for individuals who
suffered personal injuries resulting from the ignition switch
defect, both before and after bankruptcy. As a result, certain
pre-closing personal injury claims relating to the ignition switch
defect were resolved through this program. Refer to the Ignition
Switch Recall Compensation Program section below for a discussion
of the payments made under this program through September 30,
2016.
In addition on December 4, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a
judgment regarding certain issues, including the extent to which
punitive damages could be asserted against GM based on claims in
connection with vehicles manufactured by General Motors
Corporation, for which GM assumed liability in the 2009 Sale
Agreement. Various groups of plaintiffs have appealed that
decision to the district court overseeing the multidistrict
litigation.
In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014 (Shareholder Class
Action), the lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers'
Retirement System alleged that GM and several current and former
officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions
relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in
SEC filings and other public statements.
"On February 11, 2016 the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the
dismissal of four consolidated shareholder derivative actions that
had been pending in the Delaware Chancery Court. In light of the
Delaware Supreme Court's decision, proceedings have resumed in the
two consolidated shareholder derivative actions in the Eastern
District that had been stayed pending disposition of the Delaware
cases and the Eastern District is now considering our motion to
dismiss in those actions. In early 2016 an additional shareholder
derivative action was filed in the Eastern District against
certain current and former GM directors and officers making
similar allegations to the two other shareholder derivative
actions that are pending in the Eastern District. This most recent
derivative action has been transferred to the same judge handling
those two other shareholder derivative actions. Two derivative
actions filed in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan, have
been consolidated and remain stayed pending disposition of the
federal derivative actions.
"In connection with the 2014 recalls, various investigations,
inquiries and complaints have been received from the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the
Office), Congress, the SEC, Transport Canada and 50 state
attorneys general. In connection with the foregoing we have
received subpoenas and requests for additional information and we
have participated in discussions with various governmental
authorities. We have not received inquiries from the committees in
Congress for a substantial period of time and are unaware of any
further action they may take.
"On June 3, 2015 we received notice of an investigation by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning certified pre-owned
vehicle advertising where dealers had certified vehicles that
allegedly needed recall repairs. On January 28, 2016 the FTC
published a proposed consent agreement for public comment. The
public comment period has closed; the matter remains pending
before the FTC. We believe we are cooperating fully with all
pending requests for information in ongoing investigations. Such
matters could in the future result in the imposition of material
damages, fines, civil consent orders, civil and criminal penalties
or other remedies.
"We have resolved, partially or totally, several matters relating
to the recalls announced in 2014, including the recognition of
additional liabilities for such matters. First, with regard to
the investigation by the Office, on September 16, 2015 we entered
into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the DPA) with the Office
regarding its investigation of the events leading up to certain
recalls regarding faulty ignition switches. Under the DPA we have
paid the United States $900 million as a financial penalty, and we
agreed to retain an independent monitor to review and assess our
policies, practices or procedures related to statements about
motor vehicle safety, the provision of information to those
responsible for recall decisions, recall processes and addressing
known defects in certified pre-owned vehicles. In addition, the
Office agreed to recommend to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Southern District) that prosecution
of GM on the two-count information filed in the Southern District
be deferred for three years. The Office also agreed that if we are
in compliance with all of our obligations under the DPA, the
Office will, within 30 days after the expiration of the period of
deferral (including any extensions thereto), seek dismissal with
prejudice of the two-count information filed against GM.
"Second, on May 23, 2016 the district court entered a judgment
approving a class-wide settlement of the Shareholder Class Action
described above for $300 million. One significant shareholder
opted out of the settlement prior to approval and one shareholder
has filed an appeal of the decision approving the settlement.
"Third, on September 17, 2015 we announced we had reached a
memorandum of understanding regarding a $275 million settlement
that could potentially cover approximately 1,400 personal injury
claimants who have lawsuits pending in the multidistrict
litigation or who have otherwise asserted claims related to the
ignition switch recall or certain other recalls announced in 2014.
In December 2015 the court overseeing the multidistrict litigation
established a qualified settlement fund and appointed a special
master to administer certain facets of the settlement pursuant to
the terms of the memorandum of understanding. The special master
commenced his work in the three months ended December 31, 2015 and
his work continues.
"The total amount accrued at September 30, 2016 for the remaining
investigations, claims and/or lawsuits relating to the ignition
switch recalls and other related recalls represents a combination
of our best single point estimates where determinable and, where
no such single point estimate is determinable, our estimate of the
low end of the range of probable loss with regard to such matters,
if that is determinable. We believe it is probable that we will
incur additional liabilities beyond what has already been accrued
with regard to at least a portion of the remaining matters,
whether through settlement or judgment; however, we are currently
unable to estimate an overall amount or range of loss because
these matters involve significant uncertainties. The uncertainties
include the legal theory or the nature of the investigations,
claims and/or lawsuits, the complexity of the facts, the lack of
documentation available to us with respect to particular cases or
groups of cases, the results of any investigation or litigation
and the timing of resolution of the investigation or litigations,
including any appeals, and further proceedings following the
Second Circuit's July 13 decision and the district court's July 15
decision. We will continue to consider resolution of pending
matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where
it makes sense to do so."
GENERAL MOTORS: Jan. 2017 Hearing on Appeal in Ontario Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the appeals and
cross appeals related to the GM Canada Dealers' claim are
scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in January
2017.
On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a purported class
of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which
had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada. In May 2009
in the context of the global restructuring of GM's business and
the possibility that GM Canada might be required to initiate
insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff Dealers
the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GM
Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their
operations in an orderly fashion.
The Plaintiff Dealers allege that their Dealer Sales and Service
Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada
failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its
statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the
Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to
coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down
agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the
wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers'
initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" 750
million Canadian Dollars, without explanation of any specific
measure of damages.
On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues. A
number of former dealers opted out of participation in the
litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. On July 8,
2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers'
claim against GM Canada. The court also dismissed GM Canada's
counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the
wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for other
relief.
All parties have filed notices of appeal. The appeals and cross
appeals are scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal
in January 2017.
GOLDCORP INC: Faces "Brunner" Securities Suit Over Mine Updates
---------------------------------------------------------------
URS BRUNNER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GOLDCORP INC., CHARLES A. JEANNES, LINDSAY
A. HALL, DAVID GAROFALO, and RUSSELL BALL, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-07868 (C.D. Cal., October 21, 2016), alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act, in relation to, among others,
statements it made on the operations at the Penasquito Mine.
Defendant Goldcorp engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, and operation of precious metal properties in Canada,
the United States, Mexico, and Central and South America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 785-2610
Fax: (213) 226-4684
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
HARMONY GOLD: Mining Companies Appeal Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26,
2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that gold mining
companies operating in South Africa have filed an appeal related
to a consolidated class action.
On August 23, 2012, Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries
(Harmony defendants) were served with court papers in terms of
which three former employees made application to the South Gauteng
High Court to certify a class for purposes of instituting a class
action against the Harmony defendants. In essence, the applicants
want the court to declare them as suitable members to represent a
class of current and former mineworkers for purposes of
instituting a class action for certain relief and to obtain
directions from the court as to what procedure to follow in
pursuing the relief required against the Harmony defendants.
Similar applications were also brought against various other gold
mining companies for similar relief during August 2012.
On January 8, 2013, the Harmony defendants, alongside other gold
mining companies operating in South Africa (collectively the
respondents), was served with another application to certify two
classes of persons representing a class of current and former mine
workers who work or have worked on gold mines owned and/or
controlled by the respondents and who allegedly contracted
silicosis and/or other occupational lung diseases, and another
class of dependents of mine workers who have died of silicosis and
who worked on gold mines owned and/or controlled by the
respondents. The Harmony defendants opposed both applications and
instructed its attorneys to defend the application.
Following receipt of the aforesaid application, the Harmony
defendants were advised that there was a potential overlap between
the application of August 23, 2012 and the application of January
8, 2013. On October 17, 2013, the five certification applications
were consolidated by order of court.
The applications were heard in October 2015.
On May 13, 2016, the Johannesburg High Court ordered the
certification of a silicosis class and a tuberculosis class, which
are to proceed as a single class against the mining companies
acted in the application.
The companies requested leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Appeal, which was granted on by the Supreme Court of Appeal on
September 13, 2016. Harmony submitted its notice of appeal in
respect of the transmissibility of the general damages order on
July 22, 2016.
HAWAII, US: Court Certifies Confidential IDEA Class in ERK Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan Oki Mollway entered an order determining a
confidential class in the lawsuit entitled E.R.K., et al. v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, State of Hawaii, Case No. 10-436 SOM/KSC
(D. Haw.).
The Action concerns whether the State of Hawaii Department of
Education ("DOE") wrongfully denied services under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act to individuals that the DOE viewed
as having "aged out" of being eligible to receive services. On
August 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision by another
judge of the Court, ruling that the DOE's reliance on a Hawaii
statute, Act 163, to deny services under the IDEA was improper,
and that individuals had not "aged out" as calculated by the DOE.
On December 15, 2014, the parties agreed to modify the class
defined as:
All IDEA eligible persons who turned age 20 after 7/1/10 and
were made ineligible by Act 163 and all IDEA eligible
persons who were over age 20, but under age 22, on 7/1/10
and made ineligible by Act 163.
On May 20, 2016, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file under
seal no later than September 19, 2016, a list of all individuals
included in the class, stating that, after September 19, 2016, no
individual may be added to the class. The Plaintiffs filed that
list on September 19, and on October 11, the DOE submitted
objections to some of the individuals identified by the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs subsequently responded to the
objections.
The Court now determines that, with the exceptions stated below,
the individuals identified by the Plaintiffs in their filing of
September 19, 2016, are the only individuals included in the
class. The Court also closes the class. No further efforts
should be undertaken to identify or contact additional individuals
for the purpose of adding them to the class.
The Court excludes from the class individuals who were "too young"
to have been affected by Act 163.
The DOE objects to numerous individuals on the ground that they
left school before age 20. The Court overrules this objection and
includes these individuals in the class.
The DOE also objects to the inclusion of individuals it lists as
allegedly ineligible for special education services, having
withdrawn from school, or having declined a Free Appropriate
Public Education ("FAPE"). Because the record is not clear that
the individuals were in fact ineligible for special education
services, that they withdrew from school, or that they declined
FAPE, the Court overrules the objections to these individuals and
includes them in the class. The Court also questions whether
withdrawing from school in one year or declining FAPE in one year
necessarily renders an individual thereafter eternally ineligible
under the IDEA.
"This court will not entertain any motion for reconsideration of
this order absent a certification that the parties have met and
conferred in good faith regarding the basis or bases on which
reconsideration is sought. Any meet-and-confer obligation imposed
by this order may be satisfied by a telephone conversation," Judge
Mollway stated.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/681lfE from Leagle.com.
Plaintiffs C. K., R. T. D., R. D., M. D., M. P., N. B., and E.R.K.
are represented by:
Chrystn K.A. Eads, Esq.
ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-1800
Facsimile: (808) 524-4591
E-mail: CEads@ahfi.com
- and -
Claire Wong Black, Esq.
Kristin L. Holland, Esq.
Paul Alston, Esq.
ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
Oahu (Honolulu)
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-1800
Facsimile: (808) 524-4591
E-mail: CBlack@ahfi.com
KHolland@ahfi.com
PAlston@ahfi.com
- and -
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkim@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Louis Erteschik, Esq.
Matthew C. Bassett, Esq.
HAWAII DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
1132 Bishop Street, Suite 2102
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 949-2922
Facsimile: (808) 949-2928
E-mail: louis@hawaiidisabilityrights.org
mattbassettesq@gmail.com
Plaintiffs R. T. D., R. D., M. D., E.R.K. and Hawaii Disability
Rights Center are represented by:
Michelle N. Comeau, Esq.
ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-1800
Facsimile: (808) 524-4591
E-mail: MComeau@ahfi.com
Plaintiff Hawaii Disability Rights Center is represented by:
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkim@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Kristin L. Holland, Esq.
Paul Alston, Esq.
ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
Oahu (Honolulu)
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-1800
Facsimile: (808) 524-4591
E-mail: KHolland@ahfi.com
PAlston@ahfi.com
- and -
Matthew C. Bassett, Esq.
HAWAII DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
1132 Bishop Street, Suite 2102
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 949-2922
Facsimile: (808) 949-2928
E-mail: mattbassettesq@gmail.com
Defendant Department of Education, State of Hawai'i, is
represented by:
Harvey E. Henderson, Jr., Esq.
Holly T. Shikada, Esq.
Kunio Kuwabe, Esq.
Paul R. Mow, Esq.
Ryan W. Roylo, Esq.
Steve K. Miyasaka, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813 (Map)
Telephone: (808) 586-1500
Facsimile: (808) 586-1239
E-mail: harvey.e.hendersonjr@hawaii.gov
Holly.T.Shikada@hawaii.gov
Kunio.Kuwabe@hawaii.gov
Ryan.W.Roylo@hawaii.gov
steve.k.miyasaka@hawaii.gov
- and -
Kevin M. Richardson, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
HOME CARE: "Davis" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned LAKECIA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HOME CARE AT ITS
BEST, INC., KETTLY DERIVAL, and BOB DERIVAL, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-05826-KAM-LB (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2016) was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, according to the case's October 18, 2016 docket entry.
The case seeks to recoup overtime pay under the New York Labor Law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant Home Care At Its Best, Inc. (HCAIB) employs home care
workers to provide home care services to clients in New York City
and Nassau County.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
9 Paradies Lane
New Paltz, NY 12561
Phone: (845)255-9370
Fax: (845) 255-8649
Email: msweeney@getmansweeney.com
HOUSTON GUNITE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Ramos" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MARIA GOMEZ RAMOS, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons v. HOUSTON GUNITE, INC. and JAIME PENA,
Case No. 4:16-cv-03095 (S.D. Tex., October 19, 2016), arises under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and is brought individually
and as a collective action on behalf of cement finishers and
general laborers to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.
Houston Gunite, Inc., is a Texas corporation that employed the
Plaintiff. Jaime Pena is the owner and control person of Houston
Gunite.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
vijay@buenkerlaw.com
IDAHO: Court Approves Settlement in Case vs Health Dept.
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Boise, Idaho has signed off on a
preliminary settlement that would force the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare to design a new way of figuring budgets for
care of the disabled.
Under the settlement, Idaho will use a third party to help design
a budget plan with input from the public.
"The settlement proposes to design a new budget tool with the
assistance of an outside consultant and input from class members,
among others," U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote in the
Oct. 20 order. "While the new budget tool is being developed -- a
process that might take two years -- existing budgets will remain
in place for all class members.
"The settlement also includes approval of a new budget notice that
better explains any budget changes, includes the written health
and safety criteria, directs class members to free training about
handling appeals, and allows class members to identify a suitable
representative to help them with an appeal."
More than a dozen plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits in 2012,
challenging budget cuts of more than 50 percent for individuals.
The Developmental Disabilities Waiver program provides Medicaid
services for people with home-based care, including "residential
habitation services, chore services, supported employment, non-
medical transportation, specialized medical equipment, home
delivered meals and skilled nursing."
In 2011, the state agency changed how it determines the benefits,
drastically reducing the benchmark budget of $54,965 to $24,476 --
nearly 55 percent. The cuts left many adults with developmental
disabilities unable to get the care they needed, and blocked some
from receiving any care at all, according to the 2012 lawsuits.
The cuts also meant possible institutionalization for many
disabled people, a practice that for many years has been a last
resort for care.
A March 2014 consolidated complaint claims the Department of
Health and Welfare sent notices of the budget cuts without giving
recipients adequate time to prepare appeals: which is required by
state and federal laws.
The class also claimed the agency refused to disclose a "secret"
mathematical algorithm it used to determine each person's benefits
plan and budget, in violation of the Due Process Clause and the
fair hearing requirement of the Medicaid Act.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2015 that Idaho cannot cut benefits
to residents with disabilities by more than 50 percent. That 5
ruling affirmed a federal court order that expanded a preliminary
injunction preventing Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare
from cutting benefits to residents with disabilities without
adequate notice or explanation.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Richard Eppink and Zoe Palitz, were
not available for comment on October 26.
Citing In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir.
2008), Winmill wrote: "The Ninth Circuit maintains a 'strong
judicial policy' that favors settlements particularly where
complex class action litigation is concerned" and that the court's
task is to decide whether the preliminary approval falls "within
the range of possible approval."
Winmill said the provisions in the preliminary settlement meet
that criteria.
"This settlement comes after four years of zealous litigation
where every issue was contested," Winmill wrote in the order.
"There is no collusion here, and the settlement has no obvious
deficiencies. Moreover, it does not grant preferential treatment
to any segment of the class. The court concludes that it falls
within the range of possible approval and hence will grant
preliminary approval."
Winmill did have a caveat: "The court will deny the motion to the
extent it seeks final approval for the revised budget notice on
the ground that it is intertwined with the class settlement and
that class members must have an opportunity to comment on the
revised budget notice before it can be finally approved."
A final approval hearing is set for Jan. 12, 2017.
Eppink is with the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho in
Boise. Palitz with Altshuler & Berzon in San Francisco.
The case is captioned, K.W., by his next friend D.W., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, in his official capacity as
Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; PAUL
LEARY, in his official capacity as Medicaid Administrator of the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; and the IDAHO DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, a department of the State of Idaho,
Defendants., Case No. 1:12-cv-022-BLW. TOBY SCHULTZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, et al., Defendants.,
(Case No. 3:12-CV-58-BLW)(D. Idaho).
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: ERISA Plaintiffs' Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 25, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act remains pending in the
United States District Court.
In March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it
was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology
business. The company and three of its officers were named as
defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections
20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.
In May 2015, a related putative class action was also commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York based on the same underlying facts, alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The company,
management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three current or
former IBM executives were named as defendants.
On September 7, 2016, the Court granted the company's motions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in both actions. On October 21,
2016, the ERISA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping
the company as a defendant. The matter remains pending in the
United States District Court.
IRONDEQUOIT COUNTY CLUB: Faces "Mros" Suit in New York Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irondequoit County
Club Inc. The case is styled KORRIE MROS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
IRONDEQUOIT COUNTY CLUB INC., the Defendant, Case No. 11252/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 21, 2016).
Irondequoit is a club offering superior recreational experiences,
active golf and tennis programs, recreational swimming, area
famous dining, and a family-friendly atmosphere in a convenient
suburban location.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CORDELLO LAW PLLC
693 East Ave Ste 220
Rochester, NY 14607
Telephone: 857-9684
The Defendant is represented by:
ABRAMS FERNSTERMAN ET AL LLP
160 Linden Oaks Ste E
Rochester, NY 14625
Telephone: 218 9999
- and -
FERR & MULLIN
7635 Main St Po Box 440
Fishers, NY 14453
Telephone: 869 0210
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Joseph" Lawsuit Transferred to JPML
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned SHINTELLE JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
3:16-cv-07465 (September 7, 2016) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, according to a case
docket dated October 18, 2016.
The suit arises from the alleged direct and proximate result of
Defendants' and/or their corporate predecessors' negligent,
willful, and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products
known as J&J Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.
Plaintiff Shintelle Joseph was diagnosed of ovarian cancer, which
was allegedly directly and proximately caused by her regular and
prolonged exposure to talcum powder, contained in Defendants'
Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder.
Johnson & Johnson is engaged in the business of manufacturing,
marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and/or distributing talc-
containing Products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
David Scalia, Esq.
THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
One Canal Place
365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 648-0180
Fax: (504) 648-0181
Defendants are represented by:
Meera Unnithan Sossamon, Esq.
IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE LLC
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 310-2100
K12 INC: Tarapara and Tuinenburg Cases Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------
K12 Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that a California court has
consolidated the Tarapara Case and the Tuinenburg Case and
appointed Babul Tarapara and Mark Beadle as lead plaintiff.
On July 20, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc. et al was filed against the Company,
two of its officers and one of its former officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Case No. 3:16-cv-04069 ("Tarapara Case"). The plaintiff purports
to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 2013 and
October 27, 2015, inclusive, and alleges violations by the Company
and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and
the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and
omitted to disclose material facts concerning students' academic
progress, graduate eligibility for University of California and
California State University admission, class sizes, the
individualized and flexible nature of the instruction provided by
the Company, the quality of materials provided to students,
reporting with respect to student attendance and funding, and that
as a result of the aforementioned practices the Company was
exposed to liability and would be forced to end these purported
practices. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
Additionally, on September 15, 2016, a second securities class
action lawsuit captioned Gil Tuinenburg v. K12 Inc. et al was
filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-05305
("Tuinenburg Case").
On October 6, 2016, the Court consolidated the Tarapara Case and
the Tuinenburg Case and appointed Babul Tarapara and Mark Beadle
as lead plaintiff. The Company intends to defend vigorously
against each and every allegation and claim set forth in the
complaint or any amended complaint.
KOCH FOODS: "Glover" Lawsuit Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GLOVER and CHRISTOPHER VALLARO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KOCH
FOODS, INC.; JCG FOODS OF ALABAMA, LLC; JCG FOODS OF GEORGIA, LLC;
KOCH MEATS CO. INC.; TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON CHICKEN,
INC.; TYSON BREEDERS, INC.; TYSON POULTRY, INC.; PILGRIM'S PRIDE
CORPORATION; PERDUE FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON
FARMS, INC. (FOODS DIVISION); SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PRODUCTION
DIVISION); SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING DIVISION); WAYNE
FARMS, LLC; MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC.; MOUNTAIRE FARMS, LLC; MOUNTAIRE
FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.; PECO FOODS, INC.; FOSTER FARMS, LLC;
HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC.; SIMMONS FOODS, INC.; FIELDALE FARMS
CORPORATION; GEORGE'S, INC.; GEORGE'S FARMS, INC.; O.K. FOODS,
INC,; O.K. FARMS, INC.; and O.K. INDUSTRIES, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09912 (N.D. Ill., October 21, 2016),
alleges violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and state
antitrust and unfair competition laws on behalf of those who
indirectly purchased for end-use fresh or frozen raw whole broiler
chickens or commodified chicken parts.
KOCH FOODS, INC. -- http://www.kochfoods.com/-- is an American
poultry processor.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
Carl V. Malmstrom
70 W. Madison St.
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Fax: (312) 214-3110
E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
Fax: (212) 545-4653
E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
burt@whafh.com
- and -
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 983-1300
Fax: (212)983-0383
E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
egleston@gme-law.com
LINKUS ENTERPRISES: "Komarnicki" Suit Moved to E.D. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Keith Komarnicki, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
LinkUs Enterprises, LLC; Dish Network Service Corporation; Dish
Network California Service Corporation; LinkUs Enterprises, Inc.;
and Linkus CA, Case No. 16CECG03078, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California - (Fresno). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01602-DAD-SKO to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Dale A.
Drozd.
Linkus Enterprises provides automation, audio/video equipment,
security, and lighting control solutions for residential,
commercial, and government properties in the western United
States.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Nicole Nellessen Coon, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421 7100
Facsimile: (415) 421 7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
ncoon@schneiderwallace.com
LinkUs Enterprises, LLC is represented by:
Jared Hague, Esq.
Joseph Vidal Macias, Esq.
Justin Nigel Vecchiarelli, Esq.
S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, PC
6715 N. Palm Ave., Suite 216
Fresno, CA 93704
Telephone: (559) 325 0500
Facsimile: (559) 981 1217
E-mail: jared@suttonhague.com
joseph@suttonhague.com
justin@suttonhague.com
brett@suttonhague.com
LOS ANGELES: Police Department Faces Arellano-Reza Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Los Angeles Police Department unconstitutionally expands the
reach of gang injunctions to impose "probation-like conditions" on
thousands of people who are not gang members, a Youth Justice
Coalition claims in a federal class action.
The Youth Justice Coalition and two men claim the city and its
police force's repeated violations of due process
disproportionately affect men of color. Plaintiffs Peter Arellano
and Jose Reza claim police subjected them to "anti-gang"
injunctions without notice, and that the orders affect their
entire families.
Los Angeles and its police have obtained 46 anti-gang injunctions,
by default, because gangs are not legal entities, the plaintiffs'
attorneys with the ACLU say in the complaint. The injunctions
cover more than 15 percent of the city. Police use the orders to
stop gang members from engaging in lawful activities, such as
associating with friends or family members, drinking in public or
dressing in gang clothing or symbols.
People who violate the court orders face arrest, fines, and up to
six months in jail.
The Youth Justice Coalition seeks class certification for almost
10,000 people they say were served under the injunctions without
due process or an opportunity to challenge the allegations that
they are gang members.
"Without any prior notice or opportunity to contest the
allegations of gang membership, the city serves such individuals
with these injunctions that subject them to arrest for such
ordinary activities as appearing in public with friends and
family, working alongside other members of the neighborhood, or
wearing the clothes they choose," the complaint states.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in Vasquez v. Rackauckas (2013) that the
Orange County District Attorney office had unconstitutionally
enforced gang injunctions.
In the new complaint the ACLU says: "The City of Los Angeles has
refused to abide by the holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in that case and fails to afford individuals with due
process before enforcing gang injunctions against them."
ACLU staff attorney Carmen Iguina accused the LAPD and City
Attorney's Office of flaunting "one of the most basic principles
of fairness in American law."
"Police and prosecutors shouldn't be able to decide to arrest a
person for ordinary activity like walking down the street with a
friend or drinking a beer in a restaurant, just because they think
someone is a gang member. Due process means that the government
can't restrict a person's freedom without a hearing or other
opportunity to be heard," Iguina said.
The complaint "asks the court to prohibit enforcement of the
city's gang injunctions until the city provides adequate process
and to declare that subjecting people to injunctions in this
fashion violates U.S. and California constitutional law," the ACLU
said in a statement.
City Attorney's Office spokesman Rob Wilcox said his office had
not been served and declined to comment.
LAPD spokeswoman Norma Eisenman said she could not comment on
pending litigation.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Page" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gary Page, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00503, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05028-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.
The Page case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.
Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 851 3850
Facsimile: (818) 851 3850
E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com
- and -
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474 8585
E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
MAOZ VEGETARIAN: Faces "Barrera" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maoz Vegetarian
U.S.A. The case is captioned Delfino Arturo Barrera, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Maoz
Vegetarian U.S.A. Inc., doing business as Maoz Vegetarian; Maoz
8th Avenue LLC, doing business as Maoz Vegetarian; Boaz Schweizer;
John Doe 1; and John Doe 2, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08254
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2016).
Maoz Vegetarian is a chain of falafel fast food restaurants.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MERCK SHARP: Medicine To Go Sues Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
MEDICINE TO GO PHARMACIES, INC., Plaintiff, vs. MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
07741 (D.N.J., October 24, 2016), is brought on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members, to secure redress for the actions
of defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. in allegedly sending or
causing the sending of unlawful advertisements to telephone
facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. engages in the production and
distribution of vaccines, prescription products, oncology
products, consumer products, animal health products, and biologic
therapies for customers around the world.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
STERN, THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
Phone: (973) 379-7500
MERRILL LYNCH: "Fang" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
DR. WINNIE B. FANG, M.D., Plaintiff, vs. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06071-EDL (N.D.
Cal., October 20, 2016), alleges on behalf of Plaintiff and other
investors, that Defendant allowed the unauthorized transfer of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' investments and that Merrill Lynch
breached its fiduciary and statutory duties to protect its
clients.
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. -- -- http://www.ml.com-- through its
subsidiaries, provides investment, financing, and other related
services to individuals and institutions in the United States and
internationally.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William W. Palmer, Esq.
PALMER LAW GROUP
2443 Fair Oaks Boulevard, No. 545
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 972-0761
Fax: (916) 917-5397
E-mail: wpalmer@palmercorp.com
MGM RESORTS: Faces "Hanson" Lawsuit Over Gift Card Sale Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, a Delaware
corporation, and COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01661 (W.D. Wash.,
October 24, 2016), raises complaints for Defendants' alleged
practice of selling and issuing gift cards for use at MGM's
hotels, resorts, and casinos without making the required pre-sale
disclosures, and for levying unlawful fees on consumers who
purchased the gift cards.
MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL is a hospitality and entertainment
company based in Las Vegas, Nevada. Costco is a membership-based
wholesale club that sells an assortment of goods and services.
Both MGM and Costco sold gift cards -- redeemable only at MGM's
hotels, resorts, and casinos -- directly to consumers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Kevin A. Bay, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.682.5600
Fax: 206.682.2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
kbay@tousley.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq.
Stewart Pollock, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend St., Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
erapp@edelson.com
spollock@edelson.com
- and -
Alexander Darr, Esq.
DARR LAW OFFICES
11650 Olio Road, Ste 1000-224
Fishers, IN 46037
Phone: 312.857.3277
Fax: 855.225.3277
E-mail: Darr@DarrLawOffices.com
MOBILTY CENTER: Faces "Meindl" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MEINDL and ANTHONY NEGRON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOBILTY CENTER, INC.
d/b/a I FIX SCREENS, IZZMATIC INNOVATIONS LLC d/b/a I FIX SCREENS,
I FIX SCREENS ASTORIA BLVD, LLC, I FIX SCREENS GREAT NECK, LLC, I
FIX SCREENS NYC, LLC, I FIX SCREENS FLORIDA, INC., KAMRAN FAISAL
AND ABED ZIADA, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05894 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 24, 2016), seeks redress against Defendants for alleged
class-wide unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
unlawful deductions, and notice and record-keeping violations
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor law.
Defendants operate a cell phone repair business doing business as
"I Fix Screens" and are a single integrated enterprise that
consists of 32 stores and kiosks throughout the States of New York
and Florida.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Saranicole A. Duaban, Esq.
SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 499-9100
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Parties in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parties in a consolidated class action lawsuit in the Northern
District of Illinois are now in discovery.
The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods
Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading
of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to
the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in
its investigation."
"On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods
Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint alleges that Kraft
Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated or attempted to
manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated
position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-
competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical
Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil
monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or $1 million
for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the
Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus
post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction
prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from violating
specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and
costs and fees.
"In December 2015, the court denied Mondelez Global and Kraft
Foods Group's motion to dismiss the CFTC's claims of market
manipulation and attempted manipulation, and the parties are now
in discovery.
"Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat
futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in
the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an
unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment;
costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified
relief.
"In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. In June 2016, the court denied Mondelez
Global and Kraft Foods Group's motion to dismiss, and the parties
are now in discovery.
"It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters;
however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with
Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to
predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in
connection with the CFTC action."
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Northrup" Class Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTAL BURDETTE NORTHRUP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC AND SPRING
LEAF FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. F/K/A AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-03912-WSD (N.D. Ga., October 19,
2016), alleges that the Plaintiff has been damaged by the
Defendants' continued stubborn refusal, despite repeated demands,
to mark the Deed to Secure Debt satisfied of record, despite the
underlying Promissory Note being paid in full in 2006.
Ms. Northrup asserts that she is the owner of the property
encumbered by the Deed to Secure Debt. She contends that the
Security Deed was paid in full in 2006.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, is a foreign Limited Liability Company
registered to do business in the state of Georgia. Nationstar is
organized in Delaware and headquartered in Texas. Spring Leaf
Financial Services, Inc., is a foreign Corporation registered to
do business in the state of Georgia. Spring Leaf is organized in
Delaware and headquartered in Indiana. Nationstar is the loan
servicer of a Spring Leaf mortgage loan that is still pending of
record in Henry County, Georgia, as a Deed to Secure Debt filed
June 22, 2004.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben F. Windham, Esq.
BEN F. WINDHAM, P.C.
3838 Highway 42
Locust Grove, GA 30248
Telephone: (678) 565-8686
Facsimile: (678) 565-8949
E-mail: ben@windhamlaw.com
- and -
John C. Bell, Jr., Esq.
BELL & BRIGHAM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1547
Augusta, GA 30903-1547
Telephone: (706) 722-2014
Facsimile: (706) 722-7552
E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com
NATURAL HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a court
has not yet ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in the securities claass action.
The Company said, "In January 2016, two purported securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and its top
executives. On March 29, 2016, the court consolidated the
purported securities class actions, appointed two Lead Plaintiffs,
Messrs. Dao and Juan, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm and Levi &
Korsinsky LLP as co-Lead Counsel for the purported class in the
consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
April 29, 2016. The consolidated complaint purports to assert
claims on behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris
T. Sharng, and Timothy S. Davidson, and to assert claims under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Chris
T. Sharng, Timothy S. Davidson, and George K. Broady. The
consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the legality
of its business operations in China, including running an
allegedly illegal multi-level marketing business. The consolidated
complaint seeks an indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest
and costs."
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on June 15, 2016 and a reply in support of its motion to dismiss
on August 22, 2016. The Court has not ruled on the Company's
motion to dismiss yet. The Company believes that these claims are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the consolidated complaint.
NOODLES & CO: Credit Union Sues Over Private Info Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEMBA FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION on behalf of itself and a class of
similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, v. NOODLES &
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02632 (D. Col., October 24,
2016), was filed on behalf of credit unions, banks, and other
financial institutions that allegedly suffered injury as a result
of a security breach beginning on or around late January 2016, to
the present, that compromised the names, credit and debit card
numbers, card expiration dates, card verification values and other
credit and debit card information.
NOODLES & COMPANY operates a chain of fast-casual restaurants.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
Kate Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Helmsley Building, 230 Park Ave, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Fax: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
- and -
Erin G. Comite, Esq.
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: (860) 537-5537
Fax: (860) 537-4432
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th floor
Pittsburg, PA 15212
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Charles H. Van Horn, Esq.
BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1100
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 261-7711
Fax: (404) 233-1943
E-mail: CVanHorn@bfvlaw.com
- and -
Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 525-8100
Fax: (504) 284-5249
E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2921
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K St., NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-540-7200
Fax: 202-540-7201
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
sbojedla@hausfeld.com
NUVASIVE INC: Trial in Securities Litigation Set for Dec. 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that trial in the
securities litigation has been set for December 18, 2017.
On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The
operative complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.
On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case
("Plaintiff"), filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws.
The District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014,
and the District Court once again granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.
On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's
motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint.
On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint with
leave to amend. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth
Amended Complaint, and in July 2016, the District Court issued an
order rejecting the Company's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended
Complaint.
The Company answered the Fifth Amended Complaint on August 25,
2016 and discovery is proceeding. Trial has been set for December
18, 2017.
At September 30, 2016, the probable outcome of this litigation
cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of
potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the
evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an
accrual related to this litigation.
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Final Settlement Hearing on Dec. 16
------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a Final
Settlement Hearing for December 16, 2016, in the case, KB Partners
I, L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann
and Peter S. Roddy, No. 11-cv-01034 (W.D. Tex.).
The Company said, "On December 2, 2011, a purported class action
was filed against us and our executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of
allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made
by us regarding REMOXY's development and regulatory status during
the purported class period, February 3, 2011 through June 23,
2011. At a preliminary settlement conference on August 26, 2016,
the Court approved a Stipulated Settlement Agreement and ordered a
Final Settlement Hearing for December 16, 2016."
PANERA BREAD: Class Action Settlement Terms Under Negotiation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2016, that the terms and
conditions of a definitive settlement agreement are under
negotiation and the agreement is subject to the final approval by
two California Superior Courts.
On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a
former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.
In addition, several other purported class action lawsuits based
on similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed against
the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior
Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former
subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of California by Clara
Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November 30, 2015
in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by Tanner
Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager.
On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a
Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding
the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the
Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act
payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The
Memorandum of Understanding contains no admission of wrongdoing.
The terms and conditions of a definitive settlement agreement are
under negotiation and such agreement is subject to the final
approval by two California Superior Courts. The Company maintained
an appropriate reserve in accrued expenses for this settlement in
the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 27,
2016.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: "Owens" Files Suit Over Speed Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINICK OWENS, 5116 Tulip Street, Philadelphia, PA 19124, RACHAEL
BELL, 31 Cotton Road, Levittown, PA 19057 and MARK ZYCH, 127
Myrtle Avenue, Cheltenham, PA 19012, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA
19102, Defendant, Case ID No. 161002950 (Philadelphia County
Court of Common Pleas, October 20, 2016), was filed individually
and on behalf of all other individuals who were allegedly stopped
and cited by Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) officers for
violations of Subchapter F on limited access highways and divided
highways within the City of Philadelphia at a time when the PPD
did not have a current speed enforcement agreement (SEA) with the
State Police allowing the PPD to enforce speed restrictions under
Subchapter F on those highways.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA is a municipality of the state of
Philadelphia.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward T. Kang, Esq.
David P. Dean, Esq.
Jason E. Powell, Esq.
KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215)525-5850
Fax: (215)525-5860
E-mail: ekang@LawKHF.com
ddean@LawKHF.com
jpowell@LawKHF.com
PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking and Health Class Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as
of October 21, 2016, there were a number of smoking and health
cases pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or
indemnitees:
* 67 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (34),
Brazil (17), Canada (2), Chile (8), Costa Rica (2), Italy (2), the
Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 69 such cases on
October 27, 2015, and 64 cases on October 30, 2014; and
* 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on October 27, 2015 and 11 such cases on October 30, 2014.
Smoking and Health Litigation cases primarily allege personal
injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a
class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability in these cases are based on various
theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence,
strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure
to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of
deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including
compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable
relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity,
failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause,
assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of
limitations.
PHILIP MORRIS: Constitutional Appeal in Brazil Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
constitutional appeal filed by defendants in the case, The Smoker
Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip
Morris Marketing, S.A., is still pending.
The Company said, "In the class action pending in Brazil, The
Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and
Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the
Central Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil,
filed July 25, 1995, our subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for all addicted smokers and former smokers,
and injunctive relief."
In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$315) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the
rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did
not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.
Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011,
the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff appealed the
decision.
In February 2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed
plaintiff's appeal.
In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice.
In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Brazil Public Prosecutor Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an
appeal filed by plaintiff in the case, Public Prosecutor of Sao
Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., remains
pending.
The Company said, "In the class action pending in Brazil, Public
Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e
Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil,
filed August 6, 2007, our subsidiary is a defendant. The
plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is
seeking (i) damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their
relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District."
"In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case discussed above and
should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao
Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated
that these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of
judgment.
"In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the
Seventh Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases,
finding that they are based on different legal claims and are
progressing at different stages of proceedings. This case was
returned to the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and our
subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March
2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits. In January
2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's appeal
and affirmed the trial court decision. In July 2014, plaintiff
appealed to the Superior Court of Justice."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. Hearing on Merits Appeal in Letourneau Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
Court of Appeal in Canada has scheduled a hearing for the merits
appeal for November 2016 in the Cecilia Letourneau class action
lawsuit.
The Company said, "In the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia
Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed
in September 1998, our subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
(Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005."
"Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The
trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court
found our subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable
and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $100
million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million
(approximately $35 million) to our subsidiary. The trial court
found that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the
dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants
conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of
smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were
a cause of the class members' addiction. The trial court rejected
other grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i)
the evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to
youth, (ii) defendants' advertising did not convey false
information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii)
defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light
or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery. The trial court
estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but
declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class
because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient
accuracy. The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full
punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days and found that a
claims process to allocate the awarded damages to individual class
members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. The
trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed process for the
distribution of sums remaining from the punitive damage award
after payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs.
"In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process by
filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's judgment
with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a
motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into a trust
within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the Court of
Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial
court's ruling that our subsidiary make the payment into a trust
within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the
Court of Appeal seeking security in both the Letourneau case and
the Blais case described below. In October 2015, the Court of
Appeal granted the motion and ordered our subsidiary to furnish
security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $172 million), in
the form of cash into a court trust or letters of credit, in six
equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6
million (approximately $28.6 million) beginning in December 2015
through March 2017. The Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing
for the merits appeal for November 2016.
"Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and
damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any
one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that
defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of
the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members
knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that
plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants' alleged
misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct
contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual
presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise,
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all
class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class members'
claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even though the
case was filed more than three years after a prominent addiction
warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding punitive
damages to punish defendants without proper consideration as to
whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct.
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. Hearing on Merits Appeal in Blais Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
Court of Appeal in Canada has scheduled a hearing for the merits
appeal for November 2016 in the class action lawsuit by Conseil
Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais.
The Company said, "In the class action pending in Canada, Conseil
Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald
Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, our
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants. The
plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker,
sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the
class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases.
The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March 2012 and
concluded in December 2014."
"The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial
court found our subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers
liable and found that the class members' compensatory damages
totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment
interest (approximately $11.8 billion). The trial court awarded
compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis,
allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.4 billion)).
"In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately
$68,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately
$23,000) to our subsidiary and found that defendants violated the
Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and
Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to
warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The trial court also
found that defendants conspired to prevent consumers from learning
the dangers of smoking. The trial court further held that these
civil faults were a cause of the class members' diseases.
"The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the
class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show
that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants' advertising
did not convey false information about the characteristics of
cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using
the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar
delivery. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957
members. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion
(approximately $759 million) of the compensatory damage award into
a trust within 60 days, CAD 200 million (approximately $152
million) of which is our subsidiary's portion and ordered briefing
on a proposed claims process for the distribution of damages to
individual class members and for payment of attorneys' fees and
legal costs.
"In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process by
filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's judgment
with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a
motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into a trust
within 60 days notwithstanding appeal.
"In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel
and overturned the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make
an initial payment within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking an order that
defendants place irrevocable letters of credit totaling CAD 5
billion (approximately $3.8 billion) into trust, to secure the
judgments in both the Letourneau and Blais cases. Plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew their motion for security against JTI-
MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against our subsidiary and
Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.
"In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $172 million) to cover both the Letourneau
and Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $28.6 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada
Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately
$576 million) in seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of
approximately CAD 108 million (approximately $82 million)
beginning in December 2015 through June 2017.
"In September 2016, our subsidiary made its fourth quarterly
installment of security for approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $28.6 million) into a court trust. This payment is
included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance
sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the condensed
consolidated statements of cash flows. The Court of Appeal ordered
that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of
Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or upon further order
of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has scheduled a
hearing for the merits appeal for November 2016.
"Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and
damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any
one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that
defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of
the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members
knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that
plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants' alleged
misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct
contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual
presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise,
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all
class members, (iv) relying on epidemiological evidence that did
not meet recognized scientific standards, and (v) awarding
punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration
as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct.
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
preliminary motions are pending in the "Adams" class action.
In the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use
of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or
cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are
pending.
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activities Anticipated in 3 Canada Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that no
activity is anticipated in three class action lawsuits in Canada
while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in
Saskatchewan.
The Company said, "In the class action pending in Canada, Kunta v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's
Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, we, our
subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma,
and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products. In September 2009,
plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he did not anticipate
taking any action in this case while he pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan."
"In the class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we, our subsidiaries,
and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in
this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan.
"In the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and
severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No
activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan."
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: "Hogan" Sues Over Broiler Chicken Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK HOGAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION,
WILLIAM W. LOVETTE, and FABIO SANDRI, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02611 (D. Col., October 20, 2016), alleges that Defendants
violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Pilgrim's
Pride systematically colluded with several of its industry peers
to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market; (ii) the foregoing
conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii)
consequently, Pilgrim's Pride's revenues during the class period
were the result of illegal conduct; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Pilgrim's Pride's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products to retailers, distributors, and foodservice
operators in the United States, Mexico, and Puerto Rico.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Villanueva, Esq.
JEFFREY M. VILLANUEVA, P.C.
1755 Blake Street, Suite 225
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 295-7525
Fax: (303) 295-7511
Email: jeff@jmvpclaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
mgorrie@pomlaw.com
- and -
POMERANTZ LLP
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Fax: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Michael Goldberg, Esq.
Brian Schall, Esq.
GOLDBERG LAW PC
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 1-800-977-7401
Fax: 1-800-536-0065
Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com
brian@goldberglawpc.com
PRUDENT INC: Faces "Campos" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
YASEL CAMPOS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENT, INC d/b/a SUPER MERCADO EL
PAISANO, and MAHENDI PRASLA, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03115
(S.D. Tex., October 21, 2016), seeks to correct alleged unlawful
employment practices, including Defendants' failure to abide by
wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants own and operate a supermarket in the Houston, Texas
area.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Minces, Esq.
Francisco J. Caycedo, Esq.
MINCES PLLC
4545 Bissonnet, Suite 286
Bellaire, TX 77401
Phone: (346) 701-8563
Fax: (713) 583-9795
Email: david.minces@mincespllc.com
frank.caycedo@mincespllc.com
PUERTO RICO: "Carlo" Sues Police Dept. Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES CARLO, JOEL LOPEZ, and their conjugal partnership, EMILY
RAMOS SANCHEZ, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, and their conjugal
partnerships, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. COLONEL JOSE L. CALDERO, VILMA
FERNANDEZ, HECTOR PESQUERA, JANE DOE, and their respective
conjugal partnerships, THE PUERTO RICO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02867
(D.P.R., October 24, 2016), was brought for alleged unpaid wages,
including minimum wages and overtime wages and reimbursement, and
failing to provide meal breaks and compensation for missed breaks,
for deprivation of property without due process of law in
violation of the Fifth Amendment. The suit also alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Puerto Rico Wage
Payment Statute, and Puerto Rico Working Hours and Days Act.
Defendant Colonel Jose L. Caldero, is the Police Superintendent
for the Policia de Puerto Rico.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER
P.O. Box 9023914
San Juan, PR 00902-3914
Phone: (787) 754-9191
Fax: (787) 764-3101
Email: janebeckerwhitaker@yahoo.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
Andrew B. Howie, Esq.
HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749
Phone: (515) 223-4567
Fax: (515) 223-8887
Email: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net
Email: ahowie@hudsonlaw.net
- and -
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
Michael C. McKay, Esq.
Nicole N. Coon, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell St., Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Fax: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
ncoon@schneiderwallace.com
SCANSOURCE INC: Faces "Hamilton" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA HAMILTON, and KAREN HARDAWAY, Individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated current and former employees,
Plaintiffs, v. SCANSOURCE, INC., a South Carolina Corporation,
SCANSOURCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a South Carolina Corporation, and
8650 COMMERCE DRIVE, LLC, a Mississippi Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00244-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss., October 24,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants are global providers of technology products and
solutions and sell only to resellers that specialize in several
markets, including automatic identification, data capture and
point-of-sales solutions.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan M. Skertich, Esq.
GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC
6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
Memphis, TN 38119
Phone: (901) 525-1322
Fax: (901) 525-2389
E-mail: rskertich@glankler.com
- and -
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
pjackson@jsyc.com
SIX FLAGS: Defending Against Suit Alleging Privacy Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company is defending against a class action alleging violations of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act after the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court
of Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC
was added as a defendant.
The Company said, "The complaint asserts that we violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act in connection with the
admission of season pass holders and members through the finger
scan program at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and
seeks statutory damages, attorneys fees and an injunction. The
program commenced at the park in the 2014 operating season. The
complaint does not allege that any information was misused or
disseminated."
"On June 17, 2016, the court denied our motion to dismiss, and
allowed the case to proceed, however we intend to continue to
vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this
litigation is still in an early stage, the outcome is currently
not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of
loss in excess of the immaterial amount that we have recorded for
this litigation cannot be made."
SONY CORP: Faces Class Action Over PlayStation 4 Defect
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that disgruntled gamers say in a
federal class action in San Francisco, that Sony won't fix
defective PlayStation 4 disc drives for free, despite knowing
about the defect for months and even extending the warranty for
Dutch users.
SUNEDISON INC: "Linton" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2742
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Linton v. SunEdison, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00199, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08165-PKC
to the proceeding.
The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In
re: Sunedison, Inc., Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-02742-
PKC. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Southern District of New
York and assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel.
In his complaint, Plaintiff Robert Linton brought the Case
individually and on behalf of the SunEdison, Inc., Retirement
Savings Plan, and all other similarly situated Plan participants
and beneficiaries. He alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
SunEdison is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Maryland
Heights, Missouri. SunEdison finances, builds, owns, and operates
various solar and wind power plants, having developed over 1,300
solar and wind projects in 20 countries. Originally a silicon-
wafer manufacturer established in 1959 as the Monsanto Electronic
Materials Company, the Company began as a manufacturer of silicon
wafers, a basic element of semiconductor-chip manufacturing. The
Company entered the solar energy market in 2006 and changed its
name to SunEdison in May 2013 to reflect the Company's move into
solar energy. In May 2014, SunEdison formally separated its
electronics-wafer business from its solar-wafer and solar-energy
business, creating the new corporate entity SunEdison
Semiconductor, Ltd., with SunEdison, Inc. maintaining a majority
stake as the largest shareholder.
Plaintiff Robert Linton individually and on behalf of the
SunEdison Retirement Savings Plan, and all other similarly
situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, is represented by:
Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 997-9150
Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
Timothy J. Straub, Esq.
LEVI KORSINSKY LLP
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: lfeldman@zlk.com
tstraub@zlk.com
SUPERIOR STONE: Faces "Diakakis" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minas Diakakis, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Superior Stone & Interiors, LLC,
Konstantinos Manasakis, and Markos Theodorakis, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05891 (E.D.N.Y., October
22, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, in
order to remedy Defendants' alleged wrongful withholding of
Plaintiff's lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation.
Plaintiff also brings these claims under New York Labor Law as
well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations for alleged violations of minimum wages, overtime
wages, spread-of-hours pay and notice and record-keeping
requirements.
Superior Stone & Interiors, LLC owns and operates a marble stone
fabrication and installation business.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
3510 Broadway, Suite 201
Astoria, NY 11106
Phone: (718) 777-0400
Fax: (718) 777-0599
SYNGENTA AG: Farms Suit Transferred to Kansas Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
The following case was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, according to lawsuit's October
18, 2016 docket entry:
BARKSDALE FARMS, HUNT BARKSDALE, INC., GAINES BARKSDALE, INC.;
FLAUT FARMS, ALBEN FLAUTT, MIKE FLAUTT, STEPHEN FLAUTT, ROBERT
FLAUTT, ANDREW FLAUTT; FLAT GRASSY FARMS, M&P, INC., M&V, INC.,
C&P, INC., CHRIS AND MADGE, INC.; JOSHUA R. CHANDLER D/B/A JOSH
CHANDLER FARMS; ST. JUDE PLANTING COMPANY, W3 FARMS, INC., J&B
FARMS, INC., JUDE WATTS, REBECCA WATTS; WT&J FARMS, INC.; CSW
FARMS, INC.; MASSEY PLANTING CO., ELLINGTON F. MASSEY, B. TURNER
MASSEY; J&P FARMS OF MS, INC.; LONG LAKE FARMS, FRIARS POINT
FARMS, LARSON FARMS, INC., SUDDUTH PLANTING CO. INC., CLARKSDALE
FARMS, INC., CANNON FARMS INC.; MONTEITH FARMS, C.B. MONTEITH SON,
INC., BELMONT PLANTING CO., INC., HOTOPHIA FARMS, JAMES B.
MONTEITH FARMS, INC., RICHARD MONTEITH, LAURIE MONTEITH, CELESTE
MONTEITH; PALASINI FARMS, ELLIS A. PALASINI, NORMA K. PALASINI,
MICHAEL ELLIS PALASINI, ELLIS A. PALASINI, JR.; LAKEWOOD, A
PARTNERSHIP, LAKEWOOD, INC., BROOKS+MCGREGOR, INC., MATT MC, INC.;
ASHTON PLANTING CO., JC & MC LLC, JC & EH LLC, JC & LC LLC;
RIVERSIDE FARMS, GROVER C. LAWSON, III AND VICKI H. LAWSON; BILBO
FARMS, JERRY LOCKE, INC., CHARLENE LOCKE, INC., DAVID GIBSON,
INC., KATRINA GIBSON, INC.; L&G FARMS, JERRY LOCKE, DAVID GIBSON;
WILLIAM E. YOUNG, III; EASTOVER PLANTATION, INC., DAWN PLAINTIFFS
DOSTER YOUNG; WESTSIDE FARM, INC., SKJ, LLC., PHELPS FARMS, LLC.;
BAYOU FARMS, INC.; CIRCLE BAYOU, INC.; PAM JONES D/B/A PJ FARMS;
JUSTIN DAVIS D/B/A JUSTIN DAVIS FARMS; PEMBLE FARMS PARTNERSHIP
II, BETH DAVIS, INC., PEGGY DAVIS, INC., MARIANNA DAVIS, INC., TE
PEMBLE FARMS, INC., DAVIS BROS FARMS, INC., RAINBOW FARMS, INC.;
PARKINSON FARMS, INC.; GARRY MAKAMSON FARMS, GARRY MAKAMSON,
BARBAR & GARRY FARMS, INC., EDDIE & GARRY FARMS, INC., KAY & GARRY
FARMS, INC., RONNIE & GARRY FARMS, INC., MILDRED & GARRY FARMS,
INC., STEVEN & BARBARA FARM, INC.; SILENT SHADE PLANTING COMPANY,
WJ, INC., LJ, INC., TS, INC., ST, INC., JAJ, INC., EJ, INC.;
GANIER PLANTING COMPANY, LUCY FARMS, INC., GANIER BROTHERS, INC.,
GANIER LIVESTOCK, INC.; LYNDALE FARMS, MICHAEL AND ELIZABETH,
INC., MICHAEL INC.; DANNY PEARSON FARMS PARTNERSHIP, DANNY O.
PEARSON, DANIEL C. PEARSON, PAYTON K. PEARSON; GANT & SONS
PARTNERSHIP, DONALD H. GANT, SCOTT GANT, MICHAEL GANT, CINDY G.
MOUNCE; CIRCLE H JOINT VENTURE, JOHN R. HOWARTH, WALTER J.
HOWARTH, HARRY L. HOWARTH, THOMAS E. HOWARTH, JOHN R. HOWARTH,
JR.; ROWAN FARMS, LLC; SHELTON FARMS, LLC, GREG BURTON FARMS,
GREGORY EARL BURTON, VELMARIE SHELTON BURTON; COLE EAGLE FARMS,
LLC; COLE LAKE PLANTATION, LLC; ROWLAND FARMS, LLC; GREEN LAND
PLANTING CO., LLC; WAKEFIELD FARMS, ARNOLD S. CARPENTER, PEGGY S.
BROADWAY; BRISCOE & SONS FARM, JOHN B. BRISCOE, JOSHUA BRISCOE,
PAUL BRISCOE; LINVILLE FARMS, JOSEPH P. GRAVES, LEE P. GRAVES;
WHITE BROTHERS FARM, PAUL LYNN WHITE, ROBERT JERROLD WHITE;
TREADWAY BROTHERS FARM, JAMES T. TREADWAY, GERALD M. TREADWAY;
ROBERT LEE CARPENTER; JESSIE LEE HOWELL; THREE T FARM, LLC; B AND
H FARMING, LLC; TIM MORRIS FARMS, TIMOTHY J. MORRIS, TIM MORRIS,
INC.; MM FARMS, INC.; MORRIS FARMS, MOOSE PLANTING, INC., MOOSE
FARMS, INC.; M&R FARMS, TIMOTHY J. MORRIS, AMY MORRIS; RAY
CRAWFORD FARMS; NORA C. CRAWFORD, NCC RCC INC., RAY C. CRAWFORD;
3-ROCK FARMS PARTNERSHIP, MICHAEL ROCCONI FARMS, PATRICK ROCCONI
FARMS, T-M ROCCONI FARMS, M-P ROCCONI RARMS; A & L FARMS
PARTNERSHIP, LAWRENCE E. MURPHY JR., P. BOND MURPHY, ALICE RAY
MURPHY; ADB FARMS LLC; MOON LAKE FARMS PARTNERSHIP, ALAN BYRD,
COTTON POINT LTD, PARIDISE COTTON LTD, KRISTIC BYRD; GRITTMAN
FARMS PARTNERSHIP, II, J. ALLEN GRITTMAN, J & J GRITTMAN FARMS
INC., A & L GRITTMAN FARMS INC., H & F FARMS INC.; BLUFFVIEW FARMS
PARTNERSHIP, ALLEN WEST SR., ABF INC., PAF INC., JPF INC., APF
INC.; W & W PARTNERSHIP, SAS FARMS INC., SLW FARMS INC.; ANDREWS
FARMS PARTNERSHIP, CONN INC., CONNIE ANDREWS, TLA FARMS INC.,
LAMAR ANDREWS; ANTHONY FERRETTI D/B/A ANTHONY FERRETTI FARMS;
TIDMORE FARMS PARTNERSHIP, LAC INC, LITTLE T LLC, ACT PLANTING CO.
INC.;ASHLEY SELMAN FARMS PARTNERSHIP, SELMAN GROWERS LLC, JUST
SOUTH PLANTING COMPANY INC., DUE NORTH PLANTING COMPANY INC.,
SELMAN PLANTING COMPANY INC., SCHLATER PLANTING COMPNAY INC.,
SELMAN PRODUCERS; LUBIN FARMS PARTNERSHIP, CHARLYN FARMS LLC A,N
AND L FARMS INC., A AND S FARMS INC., AVA FARMS INC., MILTON
PLANTING CO. LLC; BEELER FARMS PARTNERSHIP, GEORGE C. BEELER,
AMANDA L. BEELER; BELL & BELL PARTNERSHIP, MARVIN A. BELL III,
WILLIAM S. BELL; BELL FARMS PARTNERSHIP, WILLIAM & LESLIE INC.,
WILMAR PLANTING CO. INC., BELL PLANTING CO.; THE GRIFFITH
PARTNERSHIP, BILL GRIFFITH, BILL GRIFFITH & COMPANY, GRIFFITH
FARMS INC., WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH SR. TRUST; BRAZIL PLANTING
COMPANY, HUBERT EVAN WOLFE, JR., KRISTOPHER WOLFE, ARTHUR WOLFE,
HKA INC., WWW INC.; BYRD FARMS PARTNERSHIP, BRIAN BYRD, JUDY A.
BYRD, JEREMY BYRD, JARRETT BYRD; CHIC, INC.; CHIC JR. FARMS
PARTNERHSIP, CHARLES T. CHICORELLI JR., AMY R. CHICORELLI; RELLO,
INC.; CHICKASAW FARMS PARTNERSHIP, CHARLES H. WEST, JR., AGSTAR
INC., SAMCO, INC., WESTCO, INC.; HUNT FARMS PARTNERSHIP, DAH FARMS
INC., SARAH MORGAN FARMS INC., TALLEY LAND MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP,
CHRIS TALLEY, HUNTER FARMS INC., SYDNEY FARMS INC., ANNA CHRIS
FARMS INC; CT DANNA; DANIEL W. LYONS FARMS, VIRGINIA DEAL LLC, DAN
SHERR FARMS PARTNERSHIP, SHERRY LYONS; CALLOW & CALLOW
PARTNERSHIP, DAVID CALLOW, TERESA CALLOW, ELLA MITCHEM; G & D FARM
INC.; DAVIDSON FARMS NO. 3, DEKOKA DAVIDSON FARMS INC., RD&B FARMS
INC., RUDY DAVIDSON FARMS INC.; DEAN PARTNERSHIP, DELBERT DEAN,
CHERYL DEAN, JOSEPH DEAN; DL FARMS PARTNERSHIP, LORA MUZZI, DANNY
MUZZI; DOUBLE L FARMS PARTNERHSIP, TORY ZEPPONI, CORRI ZEPPONI;
DURAJ & DURAJ PARTNERSHIP, JOHN C. DURAJ, JR.; DURST & DURST
PARTNERSHIP, DONALD O. DURST, JR., LOTTIE M. DURST, WILLIAM O.
DURST, EVELYN J. DURST, CHARLES S. DURST; HOLY GROVE PARTNERSHIP,
DONALD O. DURST, JR., LOTTIE M. DURST, WILLIAMS O. DURST, EVELYN
J. DURST, CHARLES S. DURST; RIVERVIEW FARMS A PARTNERSHIP,
EVERETTE EASTLAND, KAY B. EASTLAND; J.O. & H.C. EASTLAND INC.;
BEAR WALLOW INC.; FITZHUGH FARMS INC.; FRANK L. MELTON FARMS
PARTNERSHIP, FRANK L. MELTON, JUNE J. MELTON; FIORANELLI BROTHERS
JOINT VENTURE, FIORANELLI BROTHERS PARTNERSHIP II, FOUR F FARMS
INC., SNAKE CREEK PLAINTING & LEASING, C & G FIORANELLI FARMS
INC., JOHNSON PLACE LLC, GEORGE E. FIORANELLI, SHARON FIORANELLI,
GARY J. FIORANELLI, BEVERLY FIORANELLI, WAYNE A. FIORANELLI, DEBRA
FIORANELLI, ERIC FIORANELLI, GRAIC FARMS INC.; GUDE CARVER JR.;
BASS FARMS PARTNERSHIP, GARRETT BASS INC., BUDDY BASS INC., MARI
BASS INC.; BRUSHY LAKE FARMS OF BOLIVAR COUNTY, B. HAMPTON BASS
III INC., B. BASS INC., FREELAND BASS INC.; HANEY FARMING
PARTNERSHIP, JLH INC., TLH INC., JIM-TRO FARMS INC., J & J
PLANTING COMPANY, HAN-HOLT FARMS, INC.; MOSCO FARMS PARTNERSHIP, K
& H MOSCO FARMS INC., H & H MOSCO FARMS INC., H &A MOSCO FARMS
INC., JAMES B. RUSSELL; JERRY & RUTH SHORT PARTNERSHIP, JERRY
SHORT, RUTH SHORT; S & S PARTNERSHIP, ZUMBRO PLANTING COMPANY, J &
J PARTNERSHIP, JOE SMITH, ROSS HESTER; HENRY FARMS PARTNERSHIP,
ALEXANDAR V. HENRY, JOHN B. HENRY; F & H FARMS INC., JOHN HENRY
FARMS; WESTSIDE FARMS PARTNERSHIP, JOJEN INC., JOMAC INC.; MCKEE
PLANTING COMPANY; T & D FARMS PARTNERSHIP; KENT J. TOLER JR.,
CAREY JOE DONAHUE; L & N REGINELLI PARTNERSHIP, LAWRENCE
REGINELLI, NANCY REGINELLI, BRIAN REGINELLI; LAGNIAPPE FARMS
PARTNERSHIP, SHELBY PLACE FARMS LLC, WRIGHTS CROSSING INC., DEESON
PLACE FARMS INC., SCOTLAND PLACE INC.; MALATESTA & MALATESTA INC.
PARTNERSHIP D/B/A LEMA FARMS PARTNERSHIP, JAMES D. MALATESTA,
MALCO FARMS INC., MALATESTA & MALATESTA FARMS INC.; MARCAM
HOLDINGS, MARCUS FRIESEN, AMY S. FRIESEN; MASCOT PLANTING COMPANY,
DAVID CARR, LEAH CARR; RALPH W. MCGEE D/B/A MCGEE FARMS; MIKE
SWINDOLL FARMS PARTNERSHIP, MICHAEL D. SWINDOLL, CHERYL C.
SWINDOLL; MORGAN PLANTING COMPANY PARTNERSHIP, LIBDU INC., ISSA
INC., JANA INC., BALIZ INC., DUME INC., KLARAK INC., NIGKE LLC,
DONKE LLC; CHENAULT FARMS, HORSHOE BEND INC., MHN INC., HALF MOON
BAYOU INC.; PAIR-A-DICE FARMS INC.; JR FREY; PANTHER CREEK
PLANTATION, WILLIAM H. MCGEE, LUCILLE C. MCGEE; PATTI ROOKER
FARMS; PAUL FORTNER FARMS PARTNERSHIP, MATTHEW FORTNER, PAUL
FORTNER, PAM FORTNER, JONATHAN FORTNER; PERTHSHIRE FARMS JOINT
VENTURE, W. CARY HOOD, HOWARD A. HOOD, KENNETH B. HOOD, CURTIS G.
HOOD, KHC, INC., STAFFORD PLACE, INC., ISLAND PLACE, INC., HUGHES
PLACE, INC., SIXTH FIELD, INC., ROSE PLACE, INC., LESTER PLACE,
INC., FISHER PALCE, INC., TURKEY PEN, INC., DENTON PLACE, INC.;
MENTONE FARMS LLC; OPOSSUM RIDGE PLANTING CO., LUTKIN FARMS INC.,
OPOSSUM RIDGE FARMS INC., GRANICUS BAYOU LAND CO. INC., BUCK INC.,
L & C INC.; PONGETTI FARMS PARTNERSHIP II, GARY PONGETTI, EBP
INC., PONGETTI FARMS INC.; RAYNER PLANTING COMPANY, JON R. MEYER,
SUSAN M. ANDERSON, JIM F. MEYER, EDGAR B. MEYER, C.P.R. MEYER
FARMS INC., SUE R. LATHAM TRUST; RKB FARMS PARTNERSHIP, RODERICK
R. BROWN, SANDY BAYOU INC., GROW GRAIN INC., DELTA DIRT INC.;
ROCCO GLYNN MORRIS JR. D/B/A ROCCO GLYNN MORRIS JR. FARMS; RODNEY
H. WALKER FARMS PARTNERSHIP, RODNEY WALKER FARMS INC., R & L FARMS
INC., W & A FARMS INC.; SUNFLOWER PLANTATION PLANTING CO. LLC;
HACKBERRY FARMS D/B/A ROSS HESTER; R & R FARMS INC.; WOODS FARMS
PARTNERSHIP, RUSSELL WOODS, MARGARET M. WOODS; SCALLION FARMS
PARTNERSHIP, MARSHALL W. SCALLION, BROOKE W. SCALLION; E &S FARMS
PARTNERSHIP, ERIC LIVINGSTON, SHARON LIVINGSTON; SMYTHE & SONS
PARTNERSHIP, F.J. SMYTHE, SHERRY L. HAWKINS, WILLIAM F.R. SMYTHE,
ANN MARIE SMYTHE, R.H. CARTER SMYTHE, SARAH H. SMYTHE; J AND S
FARMS, JAMES A. HERBISON INC., STEVE HERBISON INC., HERBALLEN
INC.; BEAVER BAYOU FARMS, ERIN HERBISON FARMS INC., AFLH INC.,
WEBER FARMS INC.; WILLIAM S. NICKLES; TALLEY PLANTING COMPANY,
MICHELLE TALLEY, RANDOLPH J. TALLEY JR., BULLFROG AG INC., DALT
FARM INC.; CROSSROADS FARMS PARTNERSHIP, JEFF TALLEY, TATER BUG
FARMS INC., RED TOP FARMS INC., RISNER FARMS INC., TWO BALE FARMS
INC.; TERRY ROCCONI FARMS PARTNERSHIP, TERRY ROCCONI FARMS INC.,
T-P ROCCONI FARMS INC.; BOBO FARMS PARTNERSHIP, TIMOTHY ELLIS,
JENNIFER BAILEY; A & T FARMS PARTNERSHIP, TIMMYH WALKER, JUDY
WALKER; TOLLISON FARMS PARTNERSHIP, BECKY TOLLISON, ZACHARY CULP
TOLLISON; TWIN RIDGE FARMS PARTNERSHIP, E. NATHAN MCKNIGHT, R3
FARMS INC., GNC INC., DELTA MANAGEMENT INC.; WAXHAW FARMS, PHILLIP
ADAMS FARMS INC., JIM ADAMS FARMS INC., DAVID ADAMS FARMS INC.,
BILL ADAMS FARMS INC., BODINE FARMS INC.; WEST PARTNERSHIP II, LAW
FARMS INC., NOLAN WEST, NFW FARMS INC., HSS FARM INC., SR & JR
FARM INC.; GOURLAY JOINT VENTURE, JOHN GOURLAY, ANN GOURLAY, WILL
P. GOURLAY; WILLIAM E. LIVINGSTON JR.; Z & P FARMS LLC; JAMERSON
FARMS II, SUSAN JAMERSON, SUZANNE DEMENT VS. SYNGENTA AG, SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SYNGENTA SEEDS,
INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-02712-JWL-JPO (N.D. Miss., September 27,
2016).
The suit requests, among others, an entry of judgment finding:
(1) Syngenta falsely advertised VIPTERA corn under 43(a) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.;
(2) Syngenta's release of VIPTERA corn constitutes a public
nuisance;
(3) Syngenta's release of VIPTERA corn and contamination of the
U.S. corn supply constitutes a trespass to chattels;
(4) Syngenta's release of VIPTERA corn was negligent;
(5) Syngenta is strictly liable for damages done by the release of
VIPTERA corn;
(6) Syngenta negligently interfered with Plaintiffs' prospective
economic business relations; and
(7) Syngenta fraudulently misrepresented the approval status of
VIPTERA corn.
Syngenta AG -- http://www4.syngenta.com/-- is an agribusiness
operating in the crop protection and seeds business.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
W. Brennan Chapman, Esq.
CHAPMAN, LEWIS & SWAN, PLLC
P.O. Box 428
Clarksdale, MS 38614
Phone: (662) 627-4105
Fax: (662) 627-4171
E-mail: brennan@chapman-lewis-swan.com
- and -
Warren B. Bell, Esq.
WESTERFIELD, JANOUSH & BELL, P.A.
P.O. Box 1448
Cleveland, MS 38732
Phone: (662) 846-1716
Fax: (662) 846-7134
E-mail: wbell@wesjan.com
TERRAFORM POWER: Chamblee Stock Suit Consolidated with MDL 2742
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JOHN CHAMBLEE 835 Reynes St. New Orleans, LA
70117, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. TERRAFORM POWER, INC. 7550 Wisconsin Ave. 9th Floor
Bethesda, MD 20814 (Montgomery County), CARLOS DOMENECH ZORNOZA
12500 Baltimore Ave. Beltsville, MD 20705 (Prince George's
County), and ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ 1000 Louisiana St. #550 Houston,
TX 77002, Case No. 1:16-cv-08039-PKC (April 4, 2016) that was
originally filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, was consolidated with MDL No. 2742,
captioned IN RE: SUNEDISON, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, according
to a docket in the case dated October 14, 2016:
The case is a securities suit in relation to the filing of the
Defendant's Form 10-K beyond the extended due date of March 15,
2016, after identifying material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting.
TERRAFORM POWER, INC. owns and operates solar and wind generation
assets serving utility, commercial, and residential customers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue N.W.
East Tower, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Fax: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Marc Gorrie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
mgorrie@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Fax: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
Defendants are represented by:
Howard M. Shapiro, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR, L.L.P. (NY)
1875 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC
Phone: (202) 663-6606
Fax: (202) 663-6363
E-mail: howard.shapiro@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Joel S. Green, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Fax: (202) 663-6363
E-mail: joel.green@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Lucy Heenan Ewins, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State St.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 526-6000
E-mail: lucy.ewins@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (NYC)
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich St.
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 230-8800
Fax: (212) 230-8888
E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Timothy Jeffrey Perla, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State St.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 526-6000
Fax: (617) 526-5000
- and -
Kevin Joseph O. Connor, Esq.
Hinckley Allen, Esq.
28 State St.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 378-4394
Fax: (617) 345-9020
- and -
Tonya Kelly Cronin, Esq.
BIRAN KELLY LLC
201 N Charles St Ste 2001
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 625-2500
E-mail: tkelly@birankelly.com
- and -
Shannon M. Barrett, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
- and -
Daniel H. Bookin, Esq.
1 St. Andrew Plaza
New York City, NY 10007
- and -
Matthew Christopher Gill, Esq.
O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
1625 Eye St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 383-5300
Fax: (202) 383-5414
E-mail: mgill@omm.com
THOMSON CONSUMER: New Toxic Tort Lawsuit Filed in Taiwan
--------------------------------------------------------
Intersil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit in Taiwan have filed a new, but related
lawsuit, claiming damages on behalf of 1,147 new claimants as well
as adding additional sites at which toxic torts were alleged to
have occurred.
The Company said, "In correspondence dated September 28, 2015,
counsel for Thomson Consumer Electronics Television Taiwan, Ltd.,
or TCETVT, notified us that it reserved its right to seek
indemnification from us for any and all costs, fees, and expenses
incurred as a result of a toxic tort class action lawsuit filed in
Taiwan against TCETVT and others. The lawsuit pertains to alleged
injuries resulting from groundwater contamination at a
manufacturing facility in Taiwan currently owned by TCETVT, which
was previously owned and operated by predecessors, including
General Electric, or GE, and Harris Corporation, or Harris, of our
Taiwan subsidiary, Intersil Ltd. In the September 28
correspondence, TCETVT also informed us that the Taipei District
Court entered a judgment of $18.5 million in the lawsuit against
TCETVT, which judgment has been appealed."
"In addition, TCETVT informed us that they have incurred costs of
$11.2 million in defending against the lawsuit through September
1, 2015. We were also advised by TCETVT that additional claimants
made be added to the lawsuit and TCETVT believes that if such
additional claimants were successfully added, the resulting
liability could be as high as $200.0 million. In its September
28, 2015 letter, TCETVT informed us that it reserved its right to
seek indemnification from us for any and all costs associated with
the remediation of the contamination on that site and nearby
areas. TCETVT claims they have incurred $15.9 million in
remediation-related costs through September 1, 2015.
"By letter dated June 22, 2016 from counsel for GE and by letter
dated July 14, 2016 from counsel for TCETVT, we were advised that
in April 2016 the Taiwan Supreme Court denied the request to add
additional claimants to the existing lawsuit and that, in response
to the denial, the plaintiffs filed a new, but related lawsuit,
claiming damages on behalf of 1,147 new claimants as well as
adding additional sites at which the toxic torts were alleged to
have occurred, such that the resulting liability could be as high
as an additional $225.0 million.
"Under the terms of the 1999 Master Transaction Agreement between
Harris and Intersil, whereby Harris transferred its semiconductor
business assets to us, environmental liabilities (including those
associated with Harris' Taiwan semiconductor operations) were
expressly retained by Harris. The Master Transaction Agreement
also requires Harris to indemnify us for any and all costs
relating to those retained environmental liabilities. We have
denied liability to TCETVT for the costs associated with the
lawsuit as well as the costs associated with the remediation of
the contamination on the site. We have also submitted a claim
notice to Harris seeking defense and indemnification from Harris
under the Master Transaction Agreement for any and all claims made
by TCETVT in connection with this matter. Harris has not yet
agreed to indemnify us for the liability asserted by TCETVT."
TIMS FOOD: Faces "Nurazaman" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
MD NURAZAMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TIMS FOOD & CATERING, INC. d/b/a Subway Restaurant
and Mohammed Salam, Case No. 7:16-cv-08294 (S.D.N.Y., October 24,
2016), seeks to recover compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Defendants operate "Subway Restaurant," a food/beverage
establishment.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
40-08 Case Street, 2nd Floor
Elmhurst, NY 11373
Phone: 646-342-2019
Fax: 646-661-1317
TWIN RIVERS: "Minor" Suit Wants to Collect Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MINOR and DONALD SKAGGS, for themselves, and all
others similarly situated v. TWIN RIVERS CONSTRUCTION INC., Case
No. 2:16-cv-01002-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, October 19, 2016), seeks to
collect alleged unpaid overtime and unpaid compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Twin Rivers Construction, Inc., is a domestic corporation
registered to do business in Ohio and conducts substantial
business in the Southern District of Ohio. The Company is in the
business of completing bridge restoration on jobsites throughout
the state of Ohio. The Company maintains its home office in
Marietta, Ohio, and also maintains a "shop" located on Haul Road
in Columbus, Ohio, where it stores company trucks, materials, and
tools.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-4134
Facsimile: (513) 826-9311
E-mail: Greg.Mansell@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com
Carrie.Dyer@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Revives Portion of Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Borchers, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit restored two counts of a class action in San
Francisco shareholders complaint against Ubiquiti Networks, a
broadband wireless manufacturer that was victimized by
counterfeiting.
Ubiquiti in 2013 obtained a permanent injunction against Kozumi
USA, prohibiting it from selling wireless and networking products.
Ubiquiti claimed that Kozumi obtained blueprints from a former
Ubiquiti employee and sold copycat products in South America,
causing Ubiquiti's stock prices to fall.
Shareholders claimed that Ubiquiti downplayed the scale of the
counterfeiting in SEC filings, misleading investors who otherwise
might not have bought the stock.
A federal judge dismissed the shareholders' claims, finding the
company's registration statement adequate. Shareholders appealed
to the Ninth Circuit.
In its unpublished unanimous opinion on October 24, the Ninth
Circuit reversed two counts of the dismissal. It found that the
shareholders made a plausible claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.
"(T)he registration statement misrepresented the true extent of
counterfeiting and the misrepresentation would have misled a
reasonable investor," the panel wrote.
The shareholders also plausibly stated a Section 15 claim, which
requires a Section 11 violation. The case will be remanded for
these claims.
But the district court properly dismissed the shareholders' claim
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which
requires knowledge of wrongdoing.
"Construing plaintiffs' allegations in the light most favorable to
plaintiffs, the complaint fails to demonstrate that defendants had
sufficient knowledge of the misleading nature of the challenged
statements," the court wrote (citation omitted.)
Because this claim was dismissed, the district court properly
dismissed the Section 20(a) claim because it would require a
Section 10(b) violation.
The shareholders are represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
in San Francisco and Labaton Sucharow in New York.
Ubiquiti is represented by Latham & Watkins and Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, both of San Francisco respectively.
Peter Wald, of Latham & Watkins, said Ubiquiti was pleased with
the panel's ruling in its favor, but was disappointed with the
Section 11 ruling.
"Ubiquiti maintains that its registration statement was neither
false nor misleading with respect to the activity of
counterfeiters at the time of its IPO, and intends to petition for
rehearing of this issue," Wald said. "If Ubiquiti's petition is
denied, it will push forward with discovery, summary judgment, and
trial if necessary, to vindicate itself."
John Gardner of Labaton Sucharow declined to comment. None of the
other attorneys involved could be reached.
The Distrct Court case is In re: UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, D.C. No. 4:12-cv-04677-YGR (N.D. Cal.).
The Appellate case is, INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND GCC/IBT; BRISTOL
COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC.; ROBERT J. PERA; JOHN RITCHIE; PETER Y.
CHUNG; CHRISTOPHER J. CRESPI; CHARLES J. FITZGERALD; JOHN L.
OCAMPO; ROBERT M. VAN BUSKIRK; UBS SECURITIES, LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES, INC.; RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.; PACIFIC CREST
SECURITIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-15962 (9th Cir.).
USG CORPORATION: Homebuilders' Conspiracy Claims Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that homebuilders'
claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 have not been
dismissed, and the homebuilders' lawsit proceeds as to those
claims.
In the first quarter of 2015, USG, United States Gypsum Company,
L&W Supply Corporation, and seven other wallboard manufacturers
were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in
California by twelve homebuilders alleging that since at least
September 2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and
raise the price of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and
to effectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of
providing job quotes on wallboard. The lawsuit was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under the title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2437.
In the second quarter of 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice
the portions of the homebuilders' complaint alleging a conspiracy
in 2014 and 2015, ruling that there were insufficient factual
allegations to allow such a claim to go forward. The homebuilders'
claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 have not been
dismissed, and the case proceeds as to those claims. USG is
retaining the liability with respect to L&W Supply Corporation.
Beginning in the third quarter of 2013, class action lawsuits
making similar allegations with regard to Canada were filed in
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia courts on behalf of
purchasers of wallboard in Canada and naming USG Corporation,
United States Gypsum Company, CGC Inc., and other wallboard
manufacturers as defendants.
"We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving the homebuilders'
lawsuit and Canadian class action litigation will not have a
material effect on our results of operations, financial position
or cash flows," the Company said.
VEREIT INC: Faces "Badger" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSIE BADGER and EMILY GELLATLY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VEREIT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01607-CB (W.D. Pa., October 21, 2016),
alleges violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and its implementing regulations, in connection with
accessibility barriers in the parking lots and paths of travel at
various public accommodations owned, operated, controlled and/or
leased by Defendant.
Defendant is a real estate investment trust.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: 412.322.9243
Fax: 412.231.0246
WEBSTER CAFE: Faces "Pacheco" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELINO CORTES PACHECO and ANATOLIO SAAVEDRA, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WEBSTER
CAFE CORP. (d/b/a WEBSTER CAFE), JUAN GARCIA LAZARO and
BERTHA GARCIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08265 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 21, 2016), was brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York
Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Defendants own, operate, and/or control a diner.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
WASHINGTON: Fisk, et al. File Suit v. DHSA and SEIU
---------------------------------------------------
BECKY FISK, JOSHUA SANABRIA, JACALYN HOLSTED, LINDA BOWMAN, RUTH
NELSON, ELENA RAPANAN, NATHANIEL ISRAEL, and SUSAN NOTT,
Individual Providers in Washington, Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR JAY
INSLEE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES PATRICIA LASHWAY, and SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION HEALTHCARE 775NW, a labor organization,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05889 (W.D. Wash., October 20, 2016),
alleges for Plaintiffs and for all others similarly situated, that
the Plaintiffs, as Individual health care providers to clients of
Washington's Medicaid program and are not union members,
specifically requested that the State cease all deductions of
union dues and/or dues-equivalent fees to SEIU. Yet the State
continued and/or continues to deduct these fees even though
Plaintiffs expressly objected in writing to such payments,
resulting in reduced subsidies for Plaintiffs.
Defendant SEIU Healthcare 775NW is a labor union conducting
business and operations throughout the State of Washington.
James G. Abernathy, Esq.
David M.S. Dewhirst, Esq.
C/O FREEDOM FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
Phone: 360.956.3482
Fax: 360.352.1874
E-mail: jabernathy@myfreedomfoundation.com
ddewhirst@myfreedomfoundation.com
- and -
Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
C/O NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703.321.8510
Fax: 703.321.9319
E-mail: mlc@nrtw.org
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Final Settlement OK Expected in 4th Quarter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
anticipates final court approval of a class action settlement in
the fourth quarter of 2016.
On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh Disposal, Inc.
("Deffenbaugh"). In May 2012 and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was
named as a defendant in purported class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These
cases pertained to fuel, environmental and base rate charges
included on invoices, generally alleging that such charges were
not properly disclosed, were unfair or were contrary to the
customer service contracts. We have agreed on settlement terms for
both cases. We have received preliminary court approval and are
anticipating final court approval in the fourth quarter of 2016.
The settlements will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.
WESTPORT LINEN: "Cavin" Suit Alleges Non-payment of OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CAVIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. WESTPORT LINEN SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00705-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., October 20, 2016),
alleges that the Plaintiff was not properly paid for all hours
worked, including all overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Westport Linen Services, LLC is in the business of providing
commercial linen cleaning services for large medical-related
entities, such as hospitals, and operates out of several locations
in the State of Louisiana.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON+JACKSON
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
New Orleans, LA 70170
Phone: (504) 599-5953
Fax: (888) 988-6499
E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
mjackson@jackson-law.net
ZAIS FINANCIAL: "Dexter" Action in Baltimore Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------
Zais Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the class action
lawsuit by Sean Dexter is resolved but for the Court's
consideration of plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys'
fees, if any.
On August 24, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Sean Dexter, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ZAIS Financial Corp., et al. (the "Complaint"), was
filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore, Maryland
(the "Court") against the Company, its directors, Sutherland and
Sutherland Partners, L.P., alleging that the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in certain respects
regarding the Sutherland Merger and that the Sutherland parties
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The
Complaint sought various forms of relief, including compensatory
damages and preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief
enjoining the consummation of the proposed Sutherland Merger.
On August 30, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the proposed shareholder vote on the
proposed issuance of shares in connection with the Sutherland
Merger.
The Company and the other named defendants continue to believe
that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit, and
further believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable laws. However, the Company decided to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the Sutherland Merger, and on
September 19, 2016, in connection with the filing of these
supplemental disclosures, plaintiff Sean Dexter voluntarily
withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court
cancelled the preliminary injunction hearing, and the lawsuit is
resolved but for the Court's consideration of plaintiff's motion
for an award of attorneys' fees, if any. Due to the limited
information available at this stage of the matter, the Company is
not able to determine the likelihood of the outcome or estimate an
amount of loss or range of losses.
*********
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 * * *