/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170119.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, January 19, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 14
Headlines
1ST FINANCIAL: Mississippi Woman Seeks Class Action Status of Suit
AAV AMERICAN: Faces "Martinez" Litigation Under FLSA, NYLL
AGILE THERAPEUTICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ALLERGAN PLC: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces "Thompson" Suit in District of Minnesota
ALLIED CONCRETE: Gonzalez Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
AMERICAN BOTTLING: "Rodriguez" Sues Over Suspended Health Plan
ANDREA VISGILIO-MCGRATH: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection
APPLE INC: Consumers Can Begin Suing for App Store Monopoly
APPLE INC: Must Face Lawsuit Over App Monopoly
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Popal" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Faces "Lee" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Cal.
CANADA: Suits Over Purge of Gay Employees Proceeding
CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Kwong" Securities Suit Over Merger
CHAMBERS PROTECTIVE: "Sauseda" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
CLERMONT LOUNGE: Faces "McCoy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Rejects Admin. Infeasibility Argument
CONAIR CORP: March 23 Hair Dryer Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Says
CORP GROUP: Faces Helm LLC Suit in New York Supreme Court
CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces "Hudson" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Shields" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
DAKOTA PLAINS: Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
DEVINEY CONSTRUCTION: Tenn. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DEVON ENERGY: Court Reconsiders Denial of Seeligson's Cert. Bid
E'TAE INC: Falsely Marketed Carmelux Products, "Baker" Suit Says
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Bartl" Suit
ERGON ASPHALT: Responds to Suits Over Water Crisis
FENIX PARTS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Suit Over Illegal Diesel Emissions
FIAT CHRYSLER: Siskinds Files Class Action Lawsuit Over Dodge Ram
FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gancio" Suit Claims
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Doherty" Suit in S.D. Cal.
FRONTLINE ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Uriarte" Suit Claims
GENERAL CABLE: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
HALL COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Frozen Pension Benefits
HARMAN: CEO Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Samsung Merger
HARTFORD LIFE: Illegally Denies Insurance Claims, Suit Claims
HEALTH SERVICES: Faces "Perez" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
HELP AT HOME: "Richardson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
HGREG.COM: "Dunne" Cries Fraud in Vehicle Purchase
HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Texas Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
INSTAHELP AMERICA: Faces "Ramos" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
IRON CITY: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recoup "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA
JUST BORN: "Bryant" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Mo.
KANE CO: Faces "Cotman" Adversary Suit Over WARN Act Violations
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: "Ezell" Alleges Diversion of Settlement Fund
LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Faces "Guerra" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
MILL NECK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Insurance Contributions
MISSION HOME: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Repay Medical Providers, Suit Claims
MONTROSE MANAGEMENT: 1620 Hawthorne Suit Seeks Refund of Charges
MUSCLE MILK: NY Judge Dismisses Slack-Fill Suit
NATIONWIDE EVICTION: "Russell" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Toure" Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to S.D. Ind.
NECA/IBEW FAMILY: "D.T." Sues Over Denied Treatment
NESTLE U.S.A.: "Hafer" Suit Alleges False Advertising of Products
NIGHTINGALE HOME: Faces "Glenn" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Act
NOVO NORDISK: Faces Class Action Over Collusive Price Fixing
NOVO NORDISK: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
PARKATLANTA: Faces Suit Over Invalid Tickets
PDVSOL LLC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Quesada" Suit Says
PDVSOL LLC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Suarez" Suit Says
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Brach Eichler Files Class Action Lawsuit
ROCHE-BOBOIS: "Enriquez" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ROGERS POULTRY: "Martinez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Interest
SAMSUNG: Faces Suit Over Potentially Dangerous Washing Machines
SEATTLE GENETICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SHIRE PLC: Sued in Mass. Over Unlawful Reverse Payment Agreement
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces Suit over Applicant Rejection
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Jan. 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TESLA MOTORS: Faces "Son" Suit Over Defective Model X Vehicle
TG THERAPEUTICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
THERANOS INC: Arizona AG Preparing to Sue Company
WATTS REGULATOR: April 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WESTERN REFINING: "Vasan" Seeks to Block Merger Deal with Tesoro
ZIMMER BIOMET: Jan. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
* Financial Recovery Appoints Michael Cotter Chief Revenue Officer
* JND Legal Administration Appoints Jennifer Keough as CEO
*********
1ST FINANCIAL: Mississippi Woman Seeks Class Action Status of Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ellis at Argus News reports that a Mississippi woman is
asking a federal judge to certify a class-action lawsuit against a
South Dakota bank, claiming the bank hounded her by phone to
collect a debt that she did not owe.
Linda Pendleton claims that 1st Financial Bank violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it began contacting her
using automated dialing equipment without her consent.
"Beginning around at least September 2015, although plaintiff
never provided defendant with her cellular phone, consent to
contact her cellular phone, or had any debt with 1st Financial,
plaintiff began receiving unsolicited phone calls from 1st
Financial, sometimes multiple times a day, attempting to collect
on an alleged debt owed on behalf of her adult son," the complaint
alleges.
Wayne Nesje, a senior vice president, said the bank doesn't
comment on litigation.
1st Financial Bank was first granted a state charter in 1910 and
has branches in Dupree and Dakota Dunes, as well as a separate
credit card division. Its Dakota Dunes location was the firsts
commercial business in the town.
According to the lawsuit, the bank routinely uses "unreliable skip
tracing methods or through number trapping" when it is unable to
reach debtors with the telephone numbers they provided the bank
when opening accounts. That practice means it regularly makes
calls to cellular telephone numbers without consent.
Supreme Court hears Premier Center settlement case
"The TCPA strictly forbids nuisance calls exactly like those
alleged in this complaint -- intrusive phone calls to private
cellular phones, placed to numbers obtained without the prior
express consent of the call recipients," the complaint says.
Class-action lawsuits are not as common in South Dakota as they
are in other parts of the country, said Cesar Juarez, a local
lawyer representing Pendleton, because the state isn't home to big
industries.
In order to qualify as a class action, it would need certification
from a judge, Juarez said. Part of the certification process would
include a finding that the people called by 1st Financial suffered
the same or similar damages.
The lawsuit claims that tens of thousands of calls were made in
violation of the TCPA, which exceeds the $5 million threshold for
federal court jurisdiction.
In 2010, 1st Financial agreed to pay $140,000 in penalties and $10
million in restitution under a settlement with the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. to resolve claims that the bank's credit card
division engaged in unfair and deceptive practices.
AAV AMERICAN: Faces "Martinez" Litigation Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AAV AMERICAN PEST CONTROL 1, LLC, AAV
American Pest Control, Inc., AAV American Pest Control, Edgar
Vasquez, and Luz Manzano, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00014 (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2017), invokes the Fair
Labor Standards Act to remedy Defendants' alleged wrongful
withholding of Plaintiff's overtime compensation. Plaintiff also
brings claims under New York Labor Law, as well as the supporting
New York State Department of Labor Regulations for violations of
overtime wages, prohibited retaliation, spread-of-hours pay, meal
break violations, and notice and record-keeping violations.
AAV AMERICAN PEST CONTROL 1, LLC owns and operates AAV American
Pest Control, a business equipped to exterminate pests from
residential and commercial properties.
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
AGILE THERAPEUTICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action
lawsuit against Agile Therapeutics, Inc. ("Agile" or the
"Company") (AGRX). Investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares between March 9, 2016 and January 3, 2017 inclusive (the
"Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of
the March 7, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.
To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.
No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.
Agile is a pharmaceutical company that makes and sells
prescription female contraceptive products.
On January 3, 2017, Agile revealed new information related to its
Phase 3 SECURE study assessing Agile's combined hormonal
contraceptive patch product, Twirla. The FDA wanted the study
after it rejected Agile's initial marketing application in 2013.
The Company stated that 2% of study participants suffered "serious
adverse events" including "deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary
embolism, gallbladder disease, ectopic pregnancy and depression."
Furthermore, 51.4% of subjects left the study.
When this information was revealed to the public, the value of
Agile stock fell almost 64%, causing investors severe harm.
Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding
shareholders' rights.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contact:
Lundin Law PC
Brian Lundin, Esq.
Telephone: 888-713-1033
Facsimile: 888-713-1125
brian@lundinlawpc.com
https://lundinlawpc.com/
ALLERGAN PLC: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Lina Arslanian, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Allergan PLC, Actavis PLC, Paul M. Bisaro, Robert Todd
Joyce, Brenton L. Saunders, and Maria Teresa Hilado, Case No.
2:17-cv-00002 (D.N.J., January 2, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.
The Defendants operate a specialty pharmaceutical company, that
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical
aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical
products worldwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces "Thompson" Suit in District of Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life
Insurance Company of North America. The case is captioned as Debra
J. Thompson, an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Allianz
Life Insurance Company of North America, a Minnesota corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-00096-RHK-SER (D. Minn., Jan. 10,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Richard H. Kyle.
Allianz Life is a provider of retirement and protection solutions.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne T Regan, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JONNSON
8050 West 78th St.
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941 4005
E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
ALLIED CONCRETE: Gonzalez Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled J. TRINIDAD BERNAL
GONZALEZ, MIGUEL DIAZ, RUBEN BERNAL MAQUEDA, ANGEL BAGUI-RIOFRIO,
JOSE O. CANALES, FIORO ALBINO, RAUL RIOS, ESTEBAN RIOS, MARIO
ESTRADA FALCON, ALEXANDER COLON TORO, SERGIO DACOSTA-RODRIGUES,
VICTOR A. LAMBUR, DERRICK HOOVER, and RUBEN RIVERA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ALLIED CONCRETE
INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED CONCRETE STRUCTURES, INC., CONCRETE
STRUCTURES, INC., AMERICO MAGALHAES, and MANUEL MAGALHAES, Case
No. 2:14-cv-04771-JFB-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), move the Court for an order
certifying a class of:
all employees of Defendants Americo Magalhaes, Concrete
Structures, Inc. and ACI between August 11, 2008 and the
present who were not (1) paid proper overtime wages under 12
NYCRR, Section 142-2.2; (2) paid proper straight time wages
under the New York Labor Law and the common law of the State
of New York; (3) provided with wage notices under NYLL
Section 195(1); and/or (4) provided wage statements
compliant with NYLL Section 195(3).
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:
(1) appoint Plaintiffs J. Trinidad Bernal Gonzalez, Ruben
Bernal Maqueda, Miguel Diaz, Mario Estrada Falcon, and
Jose O. Canales as class representatives;
(2) appoint Fisher Taubenfeld LLP as class counsel;
(3) approve the proposed class notice and permitting the
Plaintiffs to circulate it to the putative class members;
and
(4) direct the Defendants to produce the names and last-known
addresses in electronic form for each of the putative
class members.
A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OTsfvAL3
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 571-0700
Facsimile: (212) 505-2001
E-mail: michael@fishertaubenfeld.com
AMERICAN BOTTLING: "Rodriguez" Sues Over Suspended Health Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The American Bottling Co., Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00011, (M.D. Fla., January 4, 2017), seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs
and any other relief for violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.
Defendant employed Plaintiff as a warehouse supervisor where he
enjoyed a health plan sponsored by the Defendant. Upon termination
of his employment, his employer allegedly failed to provide
adequate notice of discontinued coverage of the health plan.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon Hill, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON AND CABASSA PA
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
twells@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
mk@wfclaw.com
ANDREA VISGILIO-MCGRATH: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Doris Griffin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Andrea Visgilio-McGrath, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00006-KM-MAH (D.N.J., January 2, 2017), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Andrea Visgilio-Mcgrath, LLC operates a law firm located at 150
Clove Rd, Little Falls, NJ 07424.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
APPLE INC: Consumers Can Begin Suing for App Store Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Loterina at Tech Times reports the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals has ruled that consumers can now begin suing Apple for the
charge of monopoly in the way it conducted its business at the App
Store. The court has effectively reversed a district court's
dismissal of an antitrust complaint, one of the severa class-
action suits against the company.
On Apple's Anticompetitive Practice
The decision stemmed from a case filed last 2011 wherein several
iPhone users complained that the company's rule of having the
device run apps that are available exclusively in the Apple
marketplace is anticompetitive. This covered the years 2007
through 2013.
The lower court's dismissal, which has been the subject of the
appeal, was based on the argument that the complaint lacked
statutory standing. It has given Apple's position merit, which
held that its customers are purchasing apps from developers and
that its role is analogous to a building owner, renting out spaces
to its tenants.
According to the appellate court, the dynamics of the transactions
transpiring in the App Store is tantamount to the condition
wherein consumers are purchasing directly from Apple. Aside from
the fact that Cupertino is directly transacting with customers
instead of the developers, one should note that Apple itself
receives a cut whenever an app gets sold.
Right To Sue vs. Merit
To be clear, the appeals court only ruled on the issue about
whether the public has the right to sue Apple. It did not yet
resolve Cupertino's culpability in the antitrust charge.
At this point, the court has only stated that the procedural
nature of the case is complex. It has noted, however, how the
Apple ecosystem is closed and restrictive.
"Apple prohibits app developers from selling iPhone apps through
channels other than the App Store, threatening to cut off sales by
any developer who violates this prohibition," the court cited the
plaintiff's allegation.
Potential Impact
The latest ruling has achieved no significant milestone in the way
Apple is expected to conduct its affair at the App Store. It has
merely opened the company to a legal challenge that could take
years before it is resolved.
But if the judicial system does find that Apple's model is indeed
anticompetitive, then that impact will be quite dramatic.
"The obvious solution is to compel Apple to let people shop for
applications wherever they want, which would open the market and
help lower prices," Mark Rifkin, the lawyer representing the
complainants, said in a Reuters report. "The other alternative is
for Apple to pay people damages for the higher than competitive
prices they've had to pay historically because Apple has utilized
its monopoly."
Apple has not released any statement on the issue so far. It has
also faced several antitrust lawsuits involving its products such
as the iPhone as well as its alleged eBook price fixing.
APPLE INC: Must Face Lawsuit Over App Monopoly
----------------------------------------------
Kartikay Mehrotra at Bloomberg Today reports Apple Inc. must face
consumer claims that it tried to monopolize the market for iPhone
apps from 2007 to 2013 in a class-action lawsuit seeking hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco revived the proposed
class-action lawsuit after a lower-court judge dismissed it. The
three-judge panel concluded the judge erred in finding that the
consumers lacked standing to sue as "direct purchasers" of apps.
An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the court's decision.
Consumers alleged in a complaint originally filed in 2011 that
Apple violated U.S. antitrust law by requiring iPhone apps to be
sold at Apple's App Store and prohibiting third-party app
developers from selling the software outside of it. Apple requires
iPhone software developers to turn over 30 percent of what they
charge for an app, increasing prices and excluding competitors
from the iPhone "aftermarket" of apps, according to the suit.
Mark Rifkin, Esq. -- rifkin@whafh.com -- with Wolf Haldenstein, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs, said January 12 that millions of
consumers should be able to recover most of Apple's 30 percent
take from app store sales. He said that while the case hasn't won
class-action status yet, he may seek to expand the scope of the
class to include everyone who has bought apps for iPhones to the
present. Based on a provision in federal law that triples the
damages awarded in antitrust cases, he estimated Apple's exposure
could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.
Apple said in its defense that "it does not sell apps but rather
sells software distribution services to developers," according to
the court's decision.
Apple cited a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that bars consumers from
recovering damages from a company if it doesn't directly sell its
products to consumers. The appeals panel said the lower court
erred in accepting this argument since iPhone users are direct
consumers of content in the App store.
"Apple's analogy is unconvincing," the court said. "In the case
before us, third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their
own stores."
The case is In re Apple iPhone Litigation, 14-15000, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Popal" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America. The
case is styled as Suraya Popal, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00042-BTM-BGS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 10,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz.
Bank of America is an American multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asil A Mashiri, Esq.
MASHIRI LAW FIRM
11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, Suite 500694
San Diego, CA 92150
Telephone: (858) 348 4938
Facsimile: (858) 348 4939
E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com
CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Faces "Lee" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Service
Bureau, Inc. The case is titled Paul Lee, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. California
Service Bureau, Inc., a California corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02945-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2016). The
case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.
California Service provides accounts receivable management and
debt recovery.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Levi Weisberg, Esq.
KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 507 7924
Facsimile: (310) 507 7906
E-mail: david@kristensenlaw.com
CANADA: Suits Over Purge of Gay Employees Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------
Dylan C. Robertson at Daily Extra reports that class-action
lawsuits against the federal government's purge of gay employees
are proceeding, with increasing calls for an apology and
compensation for fired ousted public servants.
This month, staff in some federal departments have been asked to
preserve written, printed and electronic documents. The request,
seen by Xtra, asks public servants to store any communications
from June 27, 1969, onwards that "relate to or refer to sexual
orientation, gender identity or gender expression" as well as
employment records of people dismissed or harassed on those
grounds.
Constitutional lawyer Douglas Elliott, with Cambridge LLP who
filed one of two class-action lawsuits in October 2016, says both
are proceeding, with a court appearance scheduled Feb 10, 2017.
"We have told the federal government that they should be producing
documents that may be relevant to the case," Elliott says.
Elliott says that Justice Department lawyers say they prefer a
settlement to court-ordered compensation.
"The discussions are at a very preliminary stage right now,"
Elliott says. "We don't know any of the details of what they're
prepared to do."
The Liberal government's special advisor on LGBTQ2 issues, MP
Randy Boissonnault, wasn't available for comment. "Our government
is committed to working with the LGBTQ2 community to advance and
protect their rights and address historical injustices they have
endured," Boissonnault's constituency manager Brendon Legault told
Xtra.
Elliott's suit involves federal public servants and military
employees fired due to their perceived sexualities. His suit is
paired to a Quebec suit, because that province uses a different
code law.
CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Kwong" Securities Suit Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY KWONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CARDINAL FINANCIAL CORP., BERNARD
H. CLINEBURG, BUDDY G. BECK, MICHAEL A. FARCIA, WILLIAM E.
PETERSON, STEVEN M. WILTSE, WILLIAM J. NASSETTA, SIDNEY O.
DEWBERRY, WILLIAM G. BUCK, J. HAMILTON LAMBERT, ALICE M. STARR,
BARBARA B. LANG, AND UNITED BANKSHARES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00005-JCC-JFA (E.D. Va., January 3, 2017), alleges that
Defendants issued a Registration Statement that is deficient and
misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of all
material information related to the Proposed Merger of United
Bankshares, Inc. and Cardinal Financial Corporation. This
allegedly violates the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.
Cardinal Financial Corporation is one of the largest financial
institutions headquartered in Northern Virginia and the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 524-4290
Fax: (202) 333-2121
Email: etripodi@zlk.com
CHAMBERS PROTECTIVE: "Sauseda" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Sauseda, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chambers Protective Services, Inc., John
Chambers and Christina Chambers, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00004, (N.D. Tex., January 4, 2017), seeks overtime compensation
for all unpaid hours worked in excess of forty hours in any
workweek; all unpaid wages and overtime compensation; liquidated
damages; reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees, costs and
expenses of this action; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
and such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Chambers Protective Services provides security services to
facilities located throughout the state of Texas where John
Chambers and Christina Chambers are the owners. Plaintiff worked
as a security guard.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
Southlake, TX 76092-4322
Tel: (817) 416-5060
Fax: (817) 416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
CLERMONT LOUNGE: Faces "McCoy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy McCoy, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Clermont Lounge, Inc., and Catherine Martin, Case No.
1:17-cv-00002-SCJ (N.D. Ga., January 2, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a nightclub and bar offering adult
entertainment located at 789 Ponce De Leon Avenue NE, Atlanta, GA
30306.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Telephone: (678) 242-5297
Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com
CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Rejects Admin. Infeasibility Argument
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that the Ninth Circuit recently
affirmed a trial court's certification of a class action,
rejecting the defendant's argument that there is no
administratively feasible way to identify class members. The case
is Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
The Facts of this Case:
Robert Briseno brought suit against ConAgra Foods, Inc., alleging
that the "100% natural" label on its Wesson-brand cooking oil
products was false or misleading. Mr. Briseno and other plaintiffs
brought suit against ConAgra in eleven states. Those cases were
consolidated into a single class action containing several
subclasses.
Class plaintiffs alleged that Wesson oil products are made from
bioengineered ingredients, or genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), and therefore were not "100% natural."
ConAgra opposed class certification on the ground that there is no
administratively feasible way to identify members of the proposed
class. Because the product is of such low cost, ConAgra argued,
consumers would most likely not have retained receipts and most
likely could not clearly recollect their purchases over the period
of time during which the plaintiffs sought damages. Amongst the
many problems that this creates, ConAgra argued it would not be
able to identify which consumers relied on the "100% natural"
claim, and which consumers were misled by it. In addition, class
members could identify themselves with nothing more than an
unsubstantiated affidavit alleging harm.
The Law on Class Actions:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class
actions, a plaintiff must satisfy four requirements to obtain
class certification -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy.
In addition, a court must find that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy. This means, among other things, that the court
must consider the likely difficulties that the court and the
parties will face in managing a particular class.
What the Court Said:
The trial court rejected ConAgra's argument. The trial court held
that, for the purpose of certifying a class, the plaintiffs only
need to clearly define the potential class. And the trial court
found that the plaintiffs had in fact defined the class: all
persons who purchased Wesson oil during the class period.
The trial court further noted that Rule 23 does not permit a court
to consider the administrative infeasibility of identifying class
members when certifying a class.
ConAgra appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth
Circuit agreed with the trial court. In doing so, the Ninth
Circuit contributed to an existing split amongst the circuit
courts nationwide. The majority of the appellate circuits have
held, like the Ninth Circuit, that "administrative feasibility" is
not a prerequisite that a plaintiff must meet to attain class
certification. There are nevertheless two circuits that have
opined that administrative feasibility is a bona fide
consideration.
The First and Third Circuits have stated clearly their position
that the administrative feasibility of identifying class members
is a prerequisite to class certification.
One interesting feature of this case is that the Ninth Circuit
acknowledged that Rule 23 already has a mechanism for addressing
the difficulties in determining which class members have and have
not suffered an injury. The rule requires the court to consider
whether a class action is a superior method to non-class methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating a controversy.
Yet, in the particular case of Briseno v. ConAgra, the Ninth
Circuit opined that the class format is indeed superior to its
alternatives. The court reasoned that, because the product in
question, Wesson oil, is so inexpensive, that plaintiffs could not
individually bring suit as efficiently as they could in the
context of a class.
What Companies Should Do:
In light of Briseno v. ConAgra, companies should carefully
consider the utility of the administrative feasibility argument
when assessing the relative likelihood of class certification. The
outcome, when raising this challenge, will depend greatly on the
circuit in which a class action has been assigned.
Given the split in circuits on this question, it is now more
likely to be an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court might wish to
review.
In the meantime, companies faced with class actions should address
administrative infeasibility arguments by using the framework of
universally accepted and enumerated prerequisites to class
certification. For example, it may now be more effective to
challenge class certification under the predominance, typicality,
manageability, or superiority requirements since Rule 23 clearly
imposes those requirements for class certification.
CONAIR CORP: March 23 Hair Dryer Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you bought a Conair Infiniti Pro 1875 watt model 259 or 279
hair dryer, you could get a new hair dryer or money from a class
action settlement
www.ConairClassActionSettlement.com
1. Why was this notice issued?
A Court authorized this notice because you have a right to know
about a proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit, and about
all of your options, before the Court decides whether to approve
it. This notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, your legal
rights, the benefits that are available, who is eligible to
receive them, and how to get them.
Honorable Roger B. Benitez of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California is overseeing this class
action. The case is known as Czuchaj v. Conair Corporation,
Case No. 13-cv-01901. The people who sued are called Plaintiffs,
and the company they sued, Conair Corporation, is called the
Defendant or Conair.
2. What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit claims that the Hair Dryers sold by Conair had
defectively designed heating coils and electrical cords which
caused the Hair Dryers to fail, and sometimes injure consumers.
Specifically, the lawsuit contends Conair violated California and
New York laws by falsely advertising and/or selling a product with
alleged defects. Personal injury and property damage claims are
not included in this Settlement and you are not giving up your
right to make these claims whether you participate in this
Settlement or not.
Conair denies all of the claims in the lawsuit.
3. What is a class action?
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called Class
Representatives (in this case, Cynthia Czuchaj and Patricia
Carter) sue for all people who have similar claims. The people
included in the class action are called a Class or Class members.
One court resolves the issues for all Class members, except those
people who exclude themselves from the Settlement.
4. Why is there a Settlement?
The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendant.
Instead, both sides agreed to a Settlement. The Settlement avoids
the cost and risk of a trial, and makes money available to those
affected. The Class Representatives and their attorneys think the
Settlement is in the best interest of the Class.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT
To see if you can get a new hair dryer or money from this
Settlement, you first have to find out if you are a Class member.
5. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?
The Settlement includes everyone who purchased a Hair Dryer for
personal, family or household use and not for resale either (a) in
California from August 15, 2009 through August 31, 2016 and/or (b)
in New York from August 15, 2010 through August 31, 2016. The Hair
Dryers are Infiniti Pro 1875 watt model 259 or 279 hair dryers.
6. How do I know if my hair dryer is included?
Your hair dryer is included in the Settlement if the handle shows
it is a "Model 259" or "Model 279."
Your hair dryer must also include the letters "SE", "SR" or "N"
on the metal prong of the plug.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO HAVE YOUR HAIR DRYER. You may still be eligible
if you can provide independent proof of purchase such as a prior
contact with Conair or a government agency which
includes the date of such contact.
7. Are there exceptions to being included?
People who have a conflict of interest in this case, for example:
Class Counsel; the judges who presided over the case; and the
Defendant and its subsidiaries, affiliates, employees, officers,
directors, agents, representatives, and their family members are
not included in the Settlement.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS -- WHAT YOU GET
8. What does the Settlement provide?
Class members who bought a Hair Dryer made by Neumax will receive
a replacement hair dryer. (Neumax hair dryers have a letter "N" on
the metal prong of the electric plug). Class members who
bought a Hair Dryer made by Silver Plan or Sun Luen, will receive
a $5.00 check (these hair dryers have letters "SE" or "SR" on the
metal prong of the electric plug).
9. What can I get from the Settlement?
Class members who bought a Hair Dryer made by Neumax will receive
a comparable replacement hair dryer. Class members who bought a
Hair Dryer made by Silver Plan or Sun Luen will receive a $5.00
check.
10. What am I giving up in exchange for the Settlement?
If the Settlement is approved and becomes final, all of the
Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you. That means
you won't be able to sue, continue to sue, or be part of another
lawsuit against Conair for the same legal issues raised in this
case. The Settlement does not affect your right to sue
Conair for personal injury or property damage caused by one of the
Hair Dryers. The specific rights you are giving up are called
Released Claims. The Released Claims are described in more detail
in the Definitions Section of the Settlement Agreement at Section
12.1.2. The Settlement Agreement is
available at www.ConairClassActionSettlement.com. If you have
questions about the Released Claims or what they mean you can talk
to one of the lawyers at the law firms listed in Question 18 for
free, or you can talk with your own lawyer.
HOW TO GET A PAYMENT -- SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM
11. How do I get a payment or a replacement hair dryer, if
qualified?
To get a payment from the Settlement you must submit a claim form
by March 9, 2017. You may get the claim form at
www.ConairClassActionSettlement.com. Claim forms are also
available by calling 1-844-286-9535 or writing to the Claims
Administrator at the address above. You must complete and
submit your claim form by mailing it to Conair Claims
Administrator, c/o KCC Class Action Services,
P.O. Box 43416, Providence, RI 02940-3416.
To be considered valid, your claim form must include all of the
requested information and your signature and be submitted or
postmarked by March 9, 2017.
12. When will I get my payment or replacement hair dryer, if
qualified?
The Court will hold a hearing on March 23, 2017 to decide whether
to approve the Settlement. If Judge Benitez approves the
Settlement, there may be appeals. It is always uncertain whether
the appeals can be resolved and resolving them can take time.
Please be patient.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
If you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Conair for
the same claims in a different lawsuit, you must take steps to get
out of the Class. This is called excluding yourself or opting-out
of the Class.
13. How do I get out of the Settlement?
To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a letter by
mail stating you want to be excluded from the Czuchaj, et al. v.
Conair Corporation lawsuit and Hair Dryer Settlement. Be sure to
include your name, address, telephone number, and your signature.
Your letter must be postmarked by March 9, 2017, to: Conair
Exclusions, c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box 43416,
Providence, RI 02940-3416.
You cannot exclude yourself by phone or email.
14. If I exclude myself, can I get money from this Settlement?
No. If you exclude yourself, you are telling the Court you don't
want to be part of the Class in this Settlement. You can only get
a payment if you stay in the Class and submit a claim form.
15. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Conair for the same
thing later?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue
Conair for the claims that this Settlement resolves. You must
exclude yourself from this Class to continue with your own
lawsuit, unless your lawsuit is seeking money for personal injury
or property damage caused by one of the Hair Dryers. If you have
a pending lawsuit against Conair for the Conair Infiniti Pro 1875
watt model 259 or 279 hair dryer, you should speak to your lawyer
in that lawsuit immediately.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
16. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
Yes. The Court appointed the law firms of Odenbreit Law, APC;
Cohelan, Khoury & Singer; and Bisnar Chase, LLP to represent you
and other Class members. The lawyers are referred to as Class
Counsel. You will not be charged for the services of these
lawyers in this case. If you want to be represented by your own
lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
17. How will the lawyers be paid?
Class Counsel has not been paid for any of their work in this
lawsuit. Class Counsel will ask the Court to award them
attorneys' fees of up to $1,196,000 and reimbursement of their
costs and expenses of up to $485,000. They will also ask the
Court for a payment of up to $10,000 for each of the Class
Representatives for their bringing the lawsuit and representing
the Class. The Court may award less than these amounts. All of
these amounts, as well as the cost to administer the Settlement,
will be paid by Conair.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You can tell the Court you do not agree with the Settlement or
some part of it.
18. How do I tell the Court that I do not like the Settlement?
If you are a Class member, you can object to the Settlement. You
can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it.
The Court will consider your views before making a decision.
Objections must be submitted in writing, filed with the Court, and
received by Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel, no later than
March 9, 2017. Objections must be signed and include:
1) the case name and number (Czuchaj, et al. v. Conair
Corporation, Case No. 13-cv-01901);
2) your full name, current address, telephone number, and
signature;
3) an explanation of the basis upon which you claim to be a
Settlement Class member and
proof you are a Settlement Class member;
4) the basis of your objection;
5) a statement confirming whether you intend to personally appear
and/or testify at the
Fairness Hearing.
If you plan to appear at the Fairness Hearing, you must file with
the Court a notice of intention to appear no later than March 9,
2017. If you plan to appear with your attorney, you must include
their name, address, and telephone number.
Court Class Counsel Defense Counsel
Clerk of the Court
United States District
Court for the Southern
District of California
333 West Broadway
Suite 420
San Diego, CA
92101
Katherine J. Odenbreit
Odenbreit Law, APC
16835 Algonquin Street, Suite 221
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Isam C. Khoury
Jeff Geraci
Cohelan, Khoury & Singer
605 C. Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Brian D. Chase
Jerusalem F. Beligan
Bisnar Chase, LLP
1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Ryan D. Saba
Momo E. Takahashi
Rosen Saba, LLP
9350 Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 250
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
19. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be
excluded?
Objecting is telling the Court you do not like something about the
Settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class (do not
exclude yourself). Excluding yourself is telling the Court you do
not want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you
cannot object because the case no longer affects you.
THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING
The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement. You may attend, but you don't have to.
20. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlement?
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:30 a.m. on March 23,
2017, at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, California,
in Courtroom 5A. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether
the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
If there are objections, the Court will consider them. Judge
Benitez will listen to people who have asked to speak at the
Fairness Hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay Class
Counsel. After the Fairness Hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the Settlement. We do not know how long these
decisions will take.
The Fairness Hearing may be moved to a different time or date
without notice. Changes will be posted at
www.ConairClassActionSettlement.com.
21. Do I have to come to the hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer any questions Judge Benitez may
have. You are welcome to attend at your own expense. If you send
an objection, you do not have to appear in Court to talk about it.
As long as you filed your written objection on time, the Court
will consider it. You may also pay your own
lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary.
22. May I speak at the hearing?
Yes. You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness
Hearing. To do so, you must file a notice of intention to appear
with the Clerk of the Court by March 9, 2017. Be sure to include
your name, address, telephone number, and your signature. You
cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself.
IF YOU DO NOTHING
23. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing, you won't get any money from this Settlement.
If the Settlement is approved and becomes final, all of the
Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you. That means
you will give up your right to start a lawsuit, continue with a
lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Conair about the
same legal issues raised in this case. You will keep your right
to sue Conair for claims for personal injury or property damage
caused by one of the Hair Dryers.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
24. How do I get more information?
This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are
in the documents filed with the Court. You can get many of those
documents, and a claim form, at
www.ConairClassActionSettlement.com.
You may also review the Court's file in this case at the Office of
the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District
of California, 333 West Broadway, Suite 420, San Diego,
California. You can also call 1-844-286-9535 toll free; write to
Conair Claims Administrator, c/o KCC Class Action
Services, P.O. Box 43416, Providence, RI 02940-3416; or, contact
Class Counsel.
Questions? Call 1-844-286-9535 or go to
www.ConairClassActionSettlement.com
The deadline to submit your claim is March 9, 2017.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Judah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Galaxy Portfolios, LLC, and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 2:17-cv-00005-CCC-MF (D.N.J., Janaury 2,
2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
The Defendants own and operate a debt collection firm in New
Jersey.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
CORP GROUP: Faces Helm LLC Suit in New York Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CORP GROUP HOLDING
INVERSIONES LTDA. The case is styled as HELM LLC, the Plaintiff,
v. CORP GROUP HOLDING INVERSIONES LTDA., ITAU CORPBANCA AND BANCO
CORPBANCA COLOMBIA, S.A., the Defendant, Case No. 656601/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 21, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Charles E. Ramos.
Action referred to Judge Charles E. Ramos as it is an
international arbitration action JP.
Corp Group Holding, a Chilean company, is a subsidiary of Grupo
Saieh.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
200 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 294 6700
CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces "Hudson" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection
Services, Inc. The case is titled as Jane Hudson, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit
Collection Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00045-
GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.
Credit Collection is a professional full service debt recovery,
law firm and investigations company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233 7770
Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Shields" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is entitled as Kristina Shields, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Collection Services,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00121 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2017).
Credit Control provides business process outsourcing solutions for
customers in the United States.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
DAKOTA PLAINS: Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc.
("Dakota Plains" or the "Company") (OTCMKT:DAKP) and certain of
its officers, and is on behalf of purchasers of Dakota Plains
securities from March 23, 2012 and August 15, 2016 inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are advised to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/dakp.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Complaint that throughout the Class Period, Dakota Plains made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Dakota Plains did not disclose that Ryan Gilbertson and
Michael L. Reger, co-founders of a different Dakota Plains
company, had true control of Dakota Plains' business and
operations; (2) that the Company and its management caused harm to
Dakota Plains investors, as it worked with Gilbertson and Reger to
misappropriate Dakota Plains' assets for Gilbertson and Reger's
own benefit; (3) that Dakota Plains did not have effective and
adequate internal control; and (4) consequently, Dakota Plains'
public statements about its business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On October 31, 2016, the SEC announced that it charged Ryan
Gilberston, co-founder of Dakota Plains, "with manipulating
[Dakota Plains'] stock price and concealing his control of the
company to attain lucrative financial payouts." The SEC also
stated that Michael Reger, the Company's co-founder, agreed to pay
close to $8 million to settle other charges against him in
connection with the manipulation of Dakota Plains' stock price.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/dakpor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Dakota Plains you have until February 14, 2017 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com
DEVINEY CONSTRUCTION: Tenn. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Thompson, individually, and on behalf of other current and
former similarly situated employees v. Deviney Construction
Company, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-03019-JPM-dkv (W.D. Tenn.,
December 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi, Deviney Construction
Company, Inc. is a communication facilities contractor.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William A. Wooten, Esq.
WOOTEN LAW OFFICE
120 Court Square East
Covington, TN 38019
Telephone: (901) 475-1050
Facsimile: (901) 475-0032
E-mail: wawooten@gmail.com
- and -
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
DEVON ENERGY: Court Reconsiders Denial of Seeligson's Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ed Kinkeade entered a memorandum opinion and order in the
lawsuit captioned HENRY SEELIGSON, JOHN M. SEELIGSON, SUZANNE
SEELIGSON NASH, and SHERRI PILCHER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY,
L.P., Case No. 3:16-CV-00082-K (N.D. Tex.), granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for the court to reconsider its order denying
class certification and denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file second class certification motion.
The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of similarly situated
royalty owners alleging that Defendant Devon Energy Production
Company, L.P., improperly and intentionally underpaid royalties
owed to the Plaintiffs and class members for gas that was
processed through the Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant. The
Plaintiffs and proposed class members own or owned royalty
interests in wells that produce gas that was processed through the
Bridgeport Plant of DEPCO.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is adequately
defined and clearly ascertainable. Upon reconsideration, the
Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
certifies a class consisting of:
All person or entities who, between January 1, 2008 and
February 28, 2014, (i) are or were royalty owners in Texas
wells producing natural gas that was processed through the
Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant by Devon Gas Services, LP
(DGS); (ii) received royalties from Devon Production
Company, L.P. (DEPCO) on such gas; and (iii) had oil and gas
leases that were on one of the following forms: Producers
88-198(R) Texas Paid-Up (2/93); MEC 198 (Rev. 5/77);
Producers 88 (Rev 10-70 PAS) 310; Producers 88 Revised
1-53--(With Pooling Provision); Producers 88 (2-53) With 640
Acres Pooling Provision; Producers 88 (3-54) With 640 Acres
Pooling Provision; Producers 88 (4-76) Revised Paid Up with
640 Acres Pooling Provision; Producers 88 (7-69) With 640
Acres Pooling Provision; and Producers 88 (Rev. 3-42) With
40 Acres Pooling Provision (The Class Lease Forms).
The persons or entities excluded from the Class are: (a)
overriding royalty interest owners who derive their interest
through the oil and gas lease; (b) all governmental entities,
including federal, state and local governments and their
respective agencies, departments, or instrumentalities; (c) the
States and territories of the United States or any foreign
citizens, states, territories or entities; (d) the United States
of America; (e) publicly traded entities and their respective
parents, affiliates, and related entities; (f) owners of any
interests and/or leases located on or within any federally created
units; (g) owners of any non-operating working interest for which
DEPCO or its agents or representatives, as operator, disburses
royalty; (h) DEPCO and any entity in which DEPCO has a controlling
interest, and their officers, directors, legal representatives and
assigns; and (i) members of the judiciary and their staff to whom
this action is assigned.
The Court further orders that Henry Seeligson, John M. Seeligson,
Suzanne Seeligson Nash, and Sherri Pilcher be appointed as Class
Representatives; and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, the
Seidel Law Firm, P.C., Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP, and
Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC be appointed as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/sf9gQ0 from Leagle.com.
Plaintiffs and Counter Defendants Henry Seeligson, John M.
Seeligson, Suzanne Seeligson Nash and Sherri Pilcher are
represented by:
George Louis McWilliams, Esq.
GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
406 Walnut
Texarkana, AR 71854
Telephone: (870) 772-2055
- and -
Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
Brian L. Cramer, Esq.
Jack Mattingly, Jr., Esq.
MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS PLLC
13182 N. MacArthur Boulevard
Oklahoma, OK 73142
Telephone: (405) 603-222
E-mail: brian@mroklaw.com
jackjr@mroklaw.com
- and -
David J. Drez, III, Esq.
WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN LLP
100 Throckmorton, Suite 500
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 332-7788
E-mail: david.drez@wickphillips.com
- and -
Donald Mattson Keil, Esq.
John Clinton Goodson, Esq.
KEIL & GOODSON PA
406 Walnut Street
Texarkana, AR 71854
Telephone: (870) 772-4113
Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com
- and -
Joshua L. Hedrick, Esq.
HEDRICK KRING PLLC
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4650
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 880-9605
Facsimile: (214) 481-1844
- and -
Matthew Tyler Shoop, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW T. SHOOP
Dallas, TX
- and -
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: mtroutner@ktmc.com
namjed@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
Defendant and Counter Claimant Devon Energy Production Company LP,
is represented by:
Craig A. Haynes, Esq.
Julie Christine Abernethy, Esq.
Pervis Jefferson Ballew, Jr., Esq.
Rachelle H. Glazer, Esq.
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
One Arts Plaza
1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 969-1700
Facsimile: (214) 969-1751
E-mail: Craig.Haynes@tklaw.com
Julie.Abernethy@tklaw.com
Jeff.Ballew@tklaw.com
Rachelle.Glazer@tklaw.com
E'TAE INC: Falsely Marketed Carmelux Products, "Baker" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarai Baker, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. E'tae, Inc., Case No. 610285/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., December 30, 2016), arises out of the deceptive and
misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the
marketing and sale of the Carmelux product line. The Defendant
manufactures, markets, advertises, sells, and distributes the
Products as "Natural", when it fact the Products contain synthetic
ingredients.
Headquartered in Wyncote, Pennsylvania, E'tae, Inc., is a
manufacturer of a natural hair care line.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
- and -
Jeff Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carl Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: ibrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Bartl" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan N. Ericksen denied the Plaintiff's motion for
certification of the class action titled Christopher M. Bartl, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-252 (JNE/KMM) (D. Minn.).
The putative class action is brought by Christopher M. Bartl
against Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. Mr. Bartl claimed that ERC violated the
Act by continuing collection activity without responding to his
written dispute of a debt and by failing to inform a credit
reporting agency that he disputed the debt. Mr. Bartl moved to
certify this class:
All consumers nationwide who, within the dates between
February 3, 2015 until June 1, 2015, on any Sprint account,
received a collection letter from Defendant ERC in a form
substantially similar or materially identical to Exhibit A
(attached to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint), then
subsequently disputed the debt pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(b) with Defendant, then failed to receive any
correspondence and/or documentation from Defendant verifying
the disputed alleged debt, and thereafter had their alleged
debt reported to the national credit reporting agencies.
In the Order, Judge Ericksen noted that the Plaintiff has not
offered the Court any basis to determine how many accounts were
reported without receipt by the consumer of verification of the
debt. On this record, the Court concludes that Mr. Bartl failed
to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
"Having concluded that Bartl did not demonstrate that Rule 23(a)'s
numerosity requirement is satisfied, the Court need not consider
the remaining requirements of Rule 23," Judge Ericksen opined.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/lmdkvz from Leagle.com.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Vavreck, Esq.
MARTINEAU, GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC
401 N 3rd St., Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 659-9500
Facsimile: (612) 659-9220
E-mail: mvavreck@mgvlawfirm.com
- and -
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com
Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, is represented by:
Matthew R. Doherty, Esq.
Ryan J. Trucke, Esq.
BRUTLAG, HARTMANN & TRUCKE, PA
3555 Plymouth Boulevard, Suite 117
Plymouth, MN 55446
Telephone: (763) 222-2500
Facsimile: (763) 222-2501
E-mail: mdoherty@brutlaw.com
rtrucke@brutlaw.com
ERGON ASPHALT: Responds to Suits Over Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------
Kristv reports Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions and Valero are responding
to the lawsuits filed against them.
Hundreds of local businesses blame the companies for losses during
last month's water crisis. Three of the lawsuits filed against
Ergon and Valero are class-action lawsuits.
Ergon filed a response removing the class-action suits from county
court into federal court.
Court documents claim no wrong-doing, reading: "Ergon submits this
notice of removal without waiving any defenses to the claims
asserted by Plaintiffs..."
Attorneys for Valero also filed an affidavit stating the company
agrees with the removal.
However, the lawyers for the plaintiff -plan to fight a move to
federal court, and are filing motions to assign the cases to
county court.
The things are at issue really only deal with a really small
defined geographic area, all within the state of Texas, all within
Nueces County," said Kathryn Snapka, help@snapkalaw.com with The
Snapka Lawfirm attorney for the plaintiffs. "With this defined
group of people, there is no reason to invoke the jurisdiction of
the federal court."
Representatives for Valero declined to comment, and attorneys for
Ergon did not respond to requests for comment about their motion.
A federal judge will decide where the lawsuits will ultimately
play out. An initial pretrial hearing is scheduled for early
April.
FENIX PARTS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Business Wire reports Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law
firm, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of Fenix Parts, Inc. securities (FENX) from May 14,
2015 through October 12, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fenix Parts
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Fenix Parts class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-968.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.\
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fenix had an inadequate inventory valuation methodology;
(2) Fenix had an inadequate methodology to calculate goodwill
impairment; (3) Fenix was engaging and/or had engaged in conduct
that would result in an SEC investigation; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Fenix's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 13, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-968.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
View source version on businesswire.com:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170112006016/en/
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Suit Over Illegal Diesel Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------
The US Justice Department accused Fiat Chrysler today of
intentionally failing to disclose software in some of its diesel
engine vehicles that allows them to emit more pollution that
allowed under the Clean Air Act. The Environmental Protection
Agency also issued a "notice of violation" to Chrysler citing more
than 104,000 vehicles with 3-liter diesel engines including the
2014 through 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram pickups.
The EPA said it found at least eight undisclosed pieces of
software that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. EPA
assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance, Cynthia
Giles, said, "Failing to disclose software that affects emissions
in a vehicle's engine is a serious violation of the law, which can
result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe."
Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC is in the process of filing a class
action complaint and investigating other claims of Chrysler Fiat's
illegal diesel emissions. If you have one of the vehicles that has
been cited in violation, please contact us to discuss the
possibility vehicles in violation, please contact us to discuss
the possibility of bringing a claim. There is absolutely no cost
to you unless we are able to recover for you.
Vehicles in Violation Identified Below
2014 FCA Dodge Ram 1500
2014 FCA Jeep Grand Cherokee
2015 FCA Dodge Ram 1500
2015 FCA Jeep Grand Cherokee
2016 FCA Dodge Ram 1500
2016 FCA Jeep Grand Cherokee
FIAT CHRYSLER: Siskinds Files Class Action Lawsuit Over Dodge Ram
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 23, 2016, Siskinds LLP filed a proposed class action
lawsuit against the manufacturers and engine suppliers of certain
diesel-powered Dodge RAM 2500 and Dodge RAM 3500 heavy duty pickup
trucks.
The action relates to an alleged conspiracy among the defendants
to equip these trucks with catalyst systems that are not durable
and that cause the trucks to consume more fuel and emit higher
levels of nitrogen oxides than advertised and allowed by law. It
is also alleged that these systems cause the catalytic converter
used in these trucks to fail prematurely.
The proposed class action seeks to represent all persons or
entities who purchased or leased a diesel-powered Dodge RAM 2500
(2WD, 4WD), model years 2007-2010; Dodge RAM 2500 (non-SCR
systems, 2WD, 4WD), model years 2011-2012; Dodge RAM 3500 (2WD,
4WD), model years 2007-2010; or Dodge RAM 3500 (non-SCR systems,
2WD, 4WD), model years 2011-2012.
If you purchased or leased one of these trucks, please contact
Siskinds LLP by phone at (800) 461-6166 ext. 4221 or by email at
elizabeth.willatt@siskinds.com.
About Siskinds LLP
Siskinds LLP (http://siskinds.com/)is a full-service law firm
headquartered in London, Ontario and is Canada's leading class
actions firm. It was also the first law firm to secure
certification of a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings
Act, 1992.
FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gancio" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gancio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., LVNV Funding,
LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:17-cv-00007-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
January 2, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The Defendants own and operate a debt collection agency in New
Jersey.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Doherty" Suit in S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is captioned as Michael Doherty,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00043-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino.
Firstsource Advantage provides debt collections services to credit
card issuers, financial institutions, and healthcare providers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233 7770
Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
FRONTLINE ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Uriarte" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Uriarte, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:17-cv-00004-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.,
January 2, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The Defendants own and operate a debt collection firm in New
Jersey.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
GENERAL CABLE: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against General
Cable Corporation (BGC) ("General Cable" or the "Company") on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between February
23, 2012 and February 10, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").
General Cable shareholders who purchased their securities during
the Class Period may, no later than March 6, 2017, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class.
Shareholders who wish to discuss this action or request additional
information about the lawsuit are encouraged to contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys D. Seamus Kaskela or Adrienne O.
Bell at (888) 299-7706 or online at: https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/general-cable-corporation#join
General Cable Corporation designs, develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes copper, aluminum, and fiber optic wire
and cable products for the energy, industrial, construction, and
specialty and communications markets worldwide.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period General Cable
and certain of its executive officers made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) General Cable paid
millions of dollars in bribes to government officials in foreign
countries, including Angola, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Indonesia,
India, and Thailand, in order to secure business; (ii) the
foregoing conduct was in violation of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (the "FCPA"); (iii) General Cable's revenues were
therefore in part the product of illegal conduct, and, as such,
subject to disgorgement and unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv)
the foregoing conduct, when it became known, would subject the
Company to significant regulatory scrutiny and financial
penalties. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the
foregoing, General Cable's statements about its business,
operations and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On September 22, 2014, General Cable disclosed that it was
reviewing "payment practices," "the use of agents," and "the
manner in which the payments were reflected on our books and
records" in connection with the Company's operations in Portugal,
Angola, Thailand, and India. On this news, shares of the Company's
stock fell $0.93 per share, or 4.7%, to close at $18.96 on
September 22, 2014.
Subsequently, on February 10, 2016, General Cable reported that it
had increased a disgorgement accrual for a potential FCPA
settlement to $33 million after identifying "certain other
transactions that may raise concerns." On this news, shares of the
Company's stock fell an additional $3.05 per share, or 31.6%, to
close at $6.60 on February 11, 2016.
Finally, on December 29, 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported
that General Cable had entered into a non-prosecution agreement
with the U.S. Department of Justice and "agreed to pay $75.8
million to settle allegations it paid bribes across Africa and
Asia and . . . agreed to an additional $6.5 million penalty to
settle accounting-related violations." The article further
reported that the Company's subsidiaries, "over a period of a
dozen years, paid about $13 million to third-party agents and
distributors," who in turn "paid bribes to government officials in
Angola, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia and Thailand to get business
in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."
General Cable shareholders may, no later than March 6, 2017,
petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims
of other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information, or to learn
how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/general-cable-corporation#join
HALL COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Frozen Pension Benefits
----------------------------------------------------
Nick Watson at Gainesvilletimes reports that Five current and
former Hall County employees filed an estimated $75 million class-
action lawsuit January 9 against the county regarding frozen
pension benefits.
The expected class is more than 100 Hall County employees, the
overwhelming majority being first responders.
"We cannot comment on pending litigation," Hall County spokeswoman
Katie Crumley said. County Attorney Bill Blalock, Esq. --
wblalock@smf-law.com -- of Stuart Melvin & Frost also declined to
comment.
The Times also reached out to commissioners Jeff Stowe and Scott
Gibbs. Neither had been briefed on details of the lawsuit.
Attorney Ed Buckley, Esq. -- edbuckley@buckleybeal.com -- of the
Atlanta-based firm Buckley | Beal said the lawsuit is regarding
retired employees and employees reaching retirement that "are
being denied and will be denied pension fund benefits unless we
are able to resolve this."
The lawsuit filed in Fulton County Superior Court is challenging a
1998 freeze in retirement pension benefits. The lawsuit claims the
county "made no additional employer contributions for plaintiffs
to the 'trust fund.'"
One example listed in the lawsuit was 1st Lt. Bradford Rounds, who
was hired in Hall County in 1988.
According to the lawsuit, Rounds' monthly pension benefit would be
$2,567 under the plan's formula.
"Under defendants' 'freeze' of his accrued pension benefits as of
July 1, 1998, his 'frozen' monthly pension benefit is only $389
per month," according to the lawsuit.
The county commissioners were served with the lawsuit at their
regular 6 p.m. meeting January 12.
Around 5:30 p.m. January 12, some 30 Hall County employees
gathered with Buckley and attorney Michael Kramer, Esq. --
mekramer@buckleybeal.com -- of Buckley | Beal before entering the
meeting. Hall County Fire Services Volunteer Chaplain Mike Taylor
offered the invocation that indirectly referenced the lawsuit.
"As we come tonight, we've got a sampling of concerned employees
tonight, and I pray -- all of us pray -- that with their
presence here that a new dialogue would open," he said. "And we
give you thanks at the beginning of that dialogue that we live in
a country that is ruled by law and order, and there's an organized
and civil way of solving our differences."
Kramer said the chaplain's message would "set a wonderful tone for
the board of commissioners and for the employees."
"We need to get together and try to resolve this in a fair way for
all these employees who've worked so hard for the county and for
the citizens of this county," he said.
Kramer said the class has about 70 current employees and about 30
that retired after July 1, 2008.
The attorneys claimed Hall County "discriminated unlawfully" by
exempting retirees from the freeze who left between 1998 and June
30, 2008.
"These commissioners didn't do this originally, but now it is on
their watch," Buckley said.
HARMAN: CEO Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Samsung Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Dominik Bosnjak at Andriod Headlines reports that a group of
Harman's shareholders is opposing the merger with Samsung and has
filed a class action lawsuit against the company's board of
directors and Dinesh Paliwal, the CEO of the Stamford-based firm.
The lawsuit was filed with the Delaware Chancery Court and alleges
that Dinesh and the rest of the company's board severely
undervalued Harman when they agreed to be acquired by Samsung for
$8 billion in November. Due to that claim, the plaintiffs are
accusing the company's board of directors of violating their
fiduciary duty as they allegedly weren't acting in the best
interest of Harman's shareholders. Samsung and Harman have yet to
comment on this report, but a potential class action lawsuit could
potentially jeopardize their merger which has yet to be approved
by shareholders and regulators.
Some Harman shareholders have previously voiced their concerns
over the deal, also due to the belief that the South Korean tech
giant should pay more than $8 billion to acquire the US
manufacturer of connected car systems. It has yet to be determined
whether this is the same group of people who have now filed a
lawsuit against their own board. At the moment, the only known
plaintiff is one Robert Pine. Apart from seeking damages, the
lawsuit criticizes Harman's agreement to not consider other offers
while Samsung is finalizing the transaction. A portion of the
company's shareholders unrelated to this lawsuit is also
reportedly planning to vote against the deal, though it isn't
likely there will be enough votes opposing the merger to stop
Samsung from acquiring Harman.
Additionally, some Samsung officials are allegedly worried that
the company's attempt to purchase a controlling stake in Harman
could be jeopardized by a recent corruption scandal in South
Korea, Yonhap News Agency reports. Samsung is currently being
investigated in its home country over allegations that it bribed a
confidante of President Park with the goal of facilitating its
acquisition of Cheil Industries in 2015. The South Korean tech
giant wants to acquire Harman as a part of its push into connected
car components market. While the company has recently been
streamlining its operations, its leadership believes the
automotive electronics industry can be a massive future revenue
stream. Due to that conviction, Samsung decided to go through with
acquiring Harman despite mostly downsizing its business portfolio
in recent months.
HARTFORD LIFE: Illegally Denies Insurance Claims, Suit Claims
------------------------------0------------------------------
Keith Laster, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company and Does
1 through 100, Case No. BC645326 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 30,
2016), arises from the unlawful corporate scheme of the Defendants
to deny life insurance premium claims.
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company operates an insurance
company existing under the laws of the state of Connecticut and is
authorized to transact and is transacting a substantial amount of
its business in California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Shernoff, Esq.
Travis M. Corby, Esq.
SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP
301 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310)246-0503
Facsimile: (310) 246-0380
E-mail: wshernoff@shernoff.com
tcorby@shernoff.com
- and -
Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
Laura Antonini, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
laura@consumerwatchdog.org
HEALTH SERVICES: Faces "Perez" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Services
Asset Management, LLC. The case is styled as William Perez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Health Services Asset Management, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00044-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., Jan. 10,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.
Health Services is a debt collection agency.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233 7770
Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
HELP AT HOME: "Richardson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Richardson, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Help at Home, LLC f/k/a Help at Home, Inc.
Statewide Healthcare Services, LLC f/k/a Statewide Healthcare
Services, Inc. and Oxford Healthcare, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00060, (N.D. Ill., January 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages for up to three years prior to the filing of their
claims, liquidated damages or prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees and costs and such other legal and equitable relief as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants provide home health care services including homemaker,
custodial and skilled home health care services to elderly and
disabled persons in over 140 locations in Alabama, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee and employ registered
nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants,
home health aides and other home health care workers to provide
home health care services. Plaintiff worked as a licensed
practical nurse from 2014 to 2016.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Christine E. Webber, Esq.
Brian Corman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone (202) 408-4600
Fax: (202) 408-4699
Email: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
bcorman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone (312) 357-0370
Fax: (312) 357-0369
Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Alexander M. Baggio, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone (612) 256-3200
Fax: (612) 215-6870
Email: srey@nka.com
abaggio@nka.com
HGREG.COM: "Dunne" Cries Fraud in Vehicle Purchase
--------------------------------------------------
Alex Dunne and Richard Dunne, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. H. GREGORY 1, INC d/b/a
HGREG.COM and TIIE Guarantee Company Of North America USA,
Defendants, Case No. 50742153, (Fla. Cir., January 4, 2017), seeks
damages in excess of $15,000.00, interest, declaratory and
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs resulting from
fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and violation of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Alex and Richard Dunne purchased a 2013 Dodge Challenger from
Hgreg.com, an automotive dealership, for $12,299.00 cash. Said
dealership provided the Dunnes with a copy of the Carfax Vehicle
History but illegally charged Purchasers a pre-printed $199.00 for
E-Tag Filing Fee for accessing the vehicle's database and upon
retrieval. Said vehicle had a history of a major accident and
sustained major damages despite claims by the dealership that it
had inspected the vehicle and claimed that it had no structural
damage.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
Zachary A. Harrington, Esq.
Ashley V. Goodman, Esq.
ROGER D. MASON, II, PA
5135 West Cypress Street. Suite 105
Tampa, FL 33607
Telephone (813)304-213 1
Email: rmason@flautolawyer.com
zharrington@flautolawver.com
agoodman@flautolawyer.com
admin@flautolawyer.com
HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Texas Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Patterson, and all others similarly situated v. Horizontal
Wireline Services, LLC and Allied Wireline Services LLC, Case No.
7:17-cv-00001 (W.D. Tex., January 2, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are in the business of providing logging and
perforating services to the oil and gas basins in the United
States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
ROSS LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 474-7677
Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
E-mail: Charles@rosslawgroup.com
INSTAHELP AMERICA: Faces "Ramos" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Instahelp America,
Inc. The case is captioned as Ron Ramos, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Instahelp America, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00038-H-AGS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 10,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff.
Instahelp America is a risk management company offering legal
methods to help and offer debt solutions.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206 4741
Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com
IRON CITY: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recoup "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL CORREA GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, 1538 Cedar Lane Youngstown, Ohio 44505
Plaintiff, vs. IRON CITY WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., c/o Denise O.
Muslovski, 10513 Unity Road, New Middleton, Ohio 44442, Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00013 (N.D. Ohio, January 3, 2017), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid minimum wages due to Plaintiffs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant Iron City Wood Products is in the business of pallet
management and recycling.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
JUST BORN: "Bryant" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lois Bryant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated in Missouri, the
Plaintiff, v. Just Born, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1622-
CC11494, was removed from the Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00105-
CDP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge
Catherine D. Perry.
Just Born is a privately held, family-owned, Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania-based candy company that manufactures and markets a
number of chewy candies including Goldenberg's Peanut Chew, and
Hot Tamales.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
8816 Manchester Road
St. Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 258 0212
E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alan L. Rupe, Esq.
KUTAK ROCK, LLP
1605 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 150
Wichita, KS 67206-6634
Telephone: (316) 609 7900
Facsimile: (316) 462 5746
E-mail: alan.rupe@lewisbrisbois.com
KANE CO: Faces "Cotman" Adversary Suit Over WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamar Cotman, Brian Hill, and Stephen Renshaw, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed an
adversary proceeding against and in the bankruptcy case of The
Kane Company.
The Adversary Proceeding is captioned as Jamar Cotman, Brian Hill,
and Stephen Renshaw v. The Kane Company, Case No. 17-00015, in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).
The Kane Company, a family-owned moving company based in Elkridge,
Maryland, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. D. Md.
Case No. 16-26665) on December 22, 2016.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 13,
2017, a trio of former Kane Co. employees, including one who
worked for the Elkridge-based mover for more than 25 years, has
filed a class-action complaint stemming from the mover's abrupt
shutdown and subsequent bankruptcy.
The three are among more than 900 employees impacted when Kane
shut down Dec. 9, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege
in court documents that Kane Co. deliberately violated the federal
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by failing to
give 60-day advance notice.
The briefing schedule in the Adversary Case is set as follows:
-- Answer to the Summons is due on February 6, 2017; and
-- Pre-Trial Conference is set for March 8, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.
Plaintiffs Jamar Cotman, Brian Hill, and Stephen Renshaw, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
are represented by:
David G. Sommer, Esq.
GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP
218 N. Charles Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 951-1414
Facsimile: (410) 468-2786
E-mail: dsommer@gejlaw.com
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: "Ezell" Alleges Diversion of Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA EZELL, LEONARD WHITLEY, and ERICA BIDDINGS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
INC.; AIG ASSURANCE COMPANY; AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY; AIG
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PA.; AGC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL ANNUITY SERVICE
CORPORATION; AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC.; their predecessors and
successors, and other affiliated legal entities to be named,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10007 (D. Mass., January 3, 2017),
accuses the Defendants of secretly and unlawfully diverting
personal physical injury claims or workers' compensation claims
settlement money to pay their structured settlement specialists
and unjustly enrich themselves.
Defendants are different insurance companies.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: (617) 482-3700
Fax: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Richard B. Risk, Jr., Esq.
RISK LAW FIRM, P.A.
6964 S. Shore Drive S.
South Pasadena, FL 33707-4603
Phone: (727) 289-6696
E-mail: dick@risklawfirm.com
LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Faces "Guerra" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Linebarger Goggan
Blair & Sampson, LLP. The case is captioned as Natacha Guerra,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Texas
limited liability partnership; and Harvey Ruvin, in his capacity
as Clerk of the Courts of Miami-Dade County, Florida, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20114-KMM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 10, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge K. Michael Moore.
Linebarger Goggan is one of the nation's biggest government debt
collectors.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (954) 454 5841
Facsimile: (954) 454 5844
E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com
MILL NECK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Insurance Contributions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marian B. Boehm, Anne M. Donnelly, Carla Sue Feinstein, Noelle M.
Skidmore, Elizabeth B. Small, Judith A. Johanson, Patricia A.
Hendrick, Lou Ann Kidder, and all others similarly situated v.
Mill Neck Manor School for the Deaf, Board of Trustees of the Mill
Neck Manor School for the Deaf, Case No. 600009/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., January 2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to fully pay contractually provided for health insurance
premium contributions owed to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' spouses and
all other similarly situated persons.
The Defendants own and operate an education corporation located in
the County of Nassau, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Del Piano, Esq.
Richard E. Casagrande, Esq.
52 Broadway, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212)533-6300
MISSION HOME: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Taylor, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Mission Home Health of San
Diego, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-
03121-DMS-NLS (S.D. Cal., December 30, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mission Home Health of San Diego, Inc. offers home health services
including, but not limited to, nursing, physical therapy,
occupational therapy, speech therapy, and behavioral health to
patients throughout Southern California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Malte L. L. Farnaes, Esq.
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
Mitchell J. Murray, Esq.
FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
135 Liverpool Drive, Suite C
Cardiff, CA 92007
Telephone: (760) 942-9431
Facsimile: (760) 452-4421
E-mail: malte@farnaeslaw.com
clucio@farnaeslaw.com
mitch@farnaeslaw.com
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Rodriguez and Nubia Wilkinson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Molina Healthcare Of Florida,
Inc. and Molina Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00801-RH-CAS
(N.D. Fla. December 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants are contracted with the State of Florida, Agency
for Health Care Administration, to provide managed care, including
medical assistance and long term care, for eligible enrolees under
the Medicaid program.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Culliton, Esq.
SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
150 John Knox Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Telephone: (850) 385-9455
Facsimile: (813) 441-1999
E-mail: Sean.Culliton@gmail.com
- and -
John C. Davis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
623 Beard Street
Tallahassee, FL, 32303
Telephone: (850) 222-4770
Facsimile: (850) 222-3119
E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Repay Medical Providers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel I. Figueroa, M.D, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Molina Healthcare of California, Inc. and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC645344 (Cal. Super. Ct., December
30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
reimburse qualified medical providers, one hundred percent of the
Medicare allowable payment rate for certain Medicaid primary care
services and vaccinations.
Molina Healthcare of California, Inc. is a corporation that
contracts with the State of California and serves as a health
plan, providing health care services to families and individuals
who qualify for government-sponsored programs, including Medicaid.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. Barnes, Esq.
Douglas M. Hanchar, Esq.
BARNES LAW
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310)510-6211
E-mail: robertbames@bameslawllp.com
doughanchar@bameslawllp.com
- and -
Douglas P. Dehler, Esq.
Laura J. Lavey, Esq.
O'NEIL, CANNON, HOLLMAN, DEJONG & LAING, S.C.
111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4870
Telephone: (414)276-5000
Facsimile: (414) 276-6581
E-mail: doug.dehler@wilaw.com
laura.lavey@wilaw.com
- and -
Brian H. Mahany, Esq.
MAHANY LAW
8112 West Bluemound Road Suite 101
Wauwatosa, WI 53213
Telephone: (414) 258-2375
Facsimile: (414) 777-0776
E-mail: brian@mahanylaw.co
MONTROSE MANAGEMENT: 1620 Hawthorne Suit Seeks Refund of Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
1620 Hawthorne Ltd., on behalf of itself and on behalf of all
other persons or entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Montrose Management District, Claude Wynn, Chairman, Tammi
Wallace, Randy Mitchmore, Lane Llewellyn, Robert Jara, Ryan Haley,
Stephen Madden, Kathy Hubbard, Michael Grover, Ellyn Wulfe, Brad
Nagar and Todd Edwards, Defendants, Case No. 2017-00518, (S.D.
Tex., January 4, 2017), seeks (i) refund of illegally assessed and
involuntarily paid Montrose Management District Charges, (ii)
monetary damages, (iii) necessary attorneys' fees and costs of
suit, and (iv) all other relief.
Plaintiff owns commercial real property in Harris County, Texas.
Defendant Montrose Management District is a Municipal Management
District created by the Texas Legislature. Defendant allegedly
collected excessive taxes pursuant to a void West Montrose
Management District Assessment Petition.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy Taylor, Esq.
ANDY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2628 Highway 36S, #288
Brenham, TX 77833
Tel: (713) 222-1817
Fax: (713) 222-1855
MUSCLE MILK: NY Judge Dismisses Slack-Fill Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Melissa Busch at Legal news Wire reports a putative class action
lawsuit against the maker of Muscle Milk protein powder has been
dismissed by a Southern District of New York judge.
Plaintiff Orlando Bautista alleged that he was surprised to find
about one-third of the Muscle Milk protein powder container he
bought from the California-based supplement manufacturer Cytosport
was empty. According to his lawsuit, allegedly selling Muscle Milk
protein powder with "nonfunctional slack-fill" violated New York
state consumer fraud laws, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
unjust enrichment.
Lawrence I. Weinstein, partner and co-chair of the intellectual
property litigation group and co-chair of the false advertising
and trademark practice at Proskauer, told Legal Newsline that the
judge's decision is one of several recent decisions granting
motions to dismiss consumer class action false advertising cases,
including at least one other slack-fill decision.
Judge Cathy Seibel's decision was based on U.S. Supreme Court and
federal appellate court's rules "holding that conclusory
allegations in a complaint are not to be accepted as true on a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ P. 8(a) and 9(b)," Weinstein
said.
"When a complaint's allegations about a central element of a claim
for relief -- here, that the empty space in a container of Muscle
Milk has no functional purpose -- are wholly conclusory, the
complaint must be dismissed," Weinstein said. "In the Bautista v.
Cytosport case decided by Judge Seibel, the complaint alleged that
the empty space in the Muscle Milk containers was nonfunctional,
but did not assert any specific fact that, if credited, would
plausibly establish the truth of that assertion."
The judge found that Bautista's assertion that the 30-percent
empty space in the container was not used "to protect product --
necessary for enclosing the product or because of settling -" was
not supported by facts and the statement was provided in a
conclusory fashion, according to court records.
Weinstein believes the judge's analysis of the case was correct,
so he did not find the dismissal surprising.
"When the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic v. Twombly 10 years
ago, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal two years later, it meant to prevent
federal court dockets from being bogged down by civil lawsuits
based only on conclusory allegations," Weinstein said. "
Counsel for defendants in all class action false advertising cases
-- not just slack-fill cases -- should always ask themselves as
they read a complaint whether the plaintiff is a percipient
witness as to all the necessary allegations of the complaint, or
has otherwise set forth in the complaint specific facts to support
each element of each cause of action."
Weinstein said the plaintiff did not have "any other basis for
knowing the rationale for the defendant's' decision to employ
slack space in its Muscle Milk containers, and thus lacked a
plausible basis to allege that the empty space was nonfunctional,
and therefore deceptive. This is a relatively common defect in
class action false advertising cases, and whenever it is present,
defendants should rely heavily on this failing in motions to
dismiss the complaint.""
Though this slack-fill case was unsuccessful, Weinstein said other
companies have decided to settle, including Proctor & Gamble and
Starkist Tuna.
NATIONWIDE EVICTION: "Russell" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAN RUSSELL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE EVICTION, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00008 (S.D. Tex., January 3, 2017), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant Nationwide Eviction, LLC is a service company that
provides a local presence to real estate companies engaged in the
eviction process across the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfonso Kennard, Jr.
Ronald E. Dupree, Jr.
KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
2603 Augusta Drive, 1450
Houston, TX 77057
Phone: 713.742.0900
Fax: 713.742.0951
E-mail: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com
ronald.dupree@kennardlaw.com
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Toure" Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to S.D. Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SHELLY TOURE and TONY HEARD, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-08279, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis). The Southern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00071-LJM-TAB to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Larry J.
McKinney.
Navient Solutions provides loan management, servicing, and asset
recovery solutions to clients in higher education and business
clients.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron David Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 322 3912
Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Adam Theodore Hill, Esq.
Gregory Howard Moss, Esq.
Krohn & Moss, Ltd.
10 N Dearborn Street, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 578 9428
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa Marie Simonetti, Esq.
Andrew Michael Barrios, Esq.
Bryan K. Clark, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 204 7700
Facsimile: (424) 204 7702
E-mail: bclark@vedderprice.com
NECA/IBEW FAMILY: "D.T." Sues Over Denied Treatment
---------------------------------------------------
D.T., by and through his parents and guardians, K.T. and W.T.,
individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and on
behalf of the NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, Plaintiff, v.
NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, The Board of Trustees of The
NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, Salvatore J. Chilia, Robert P.
Klein, Darrell L. Mccubbins, Geary Higgins, Lawrence J. Moter,
Jr., Kevin Tighe, Jerry Simms, and any other individual member of
the Board of Trustees of NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00004, (W.D. Wash., January 4, 2017),
seeks remedies for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974;
benefits that have been denied; and injunction to prevent any
future or ongoing efforts by the Plan and/or the Trustees to use
and enforce any exclusions, limitations, policies or practices
that impermissibly deny, exclude or limit beneficiaries' access to
medically necessary services.
D.T. is a participant of the NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan.
Plaintiff has been diagnosed with developmental mental health
conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders and require Applied Behavior Analysis therapy.
The Plan, however, has denied all coverage of such treatment
through the application of exclusions and limitations.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel. (206) 223-0303
Fax: (206) 223-0246
Email: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
ehamburger@sylaw.com
NESTLE U.S.A.: "Hafer" Suit Alleges False Advertising of Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY HAFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00034 (C.D. Cal., January 3, 2016), is a purported
consumer protection and false advertising lawsuit based on
Defendant's alleged misleading business practices with respect to
the packaging and sale of its box packaged Raisinets(R) brand
products, including Nestle Milk Chocolate Raisinets and Nestle
Dark Chocolate Raisinets.
According to the complaint, Defendant packaged and sold the
Products in opaque box packaging that conceals from consumers the
amount of Raisinets candies inside the box packaging. The
Products' packaging leads the reasonable consumer to believe he or
she is purchasing a box full of Raisinets candies. In reality,
the Products are uniformly under-filled -- approximately only 60%
of each of the Products' packaging is filled with Raisinets
candies.
Nestle USA, Inc. produces and markets food and beverage products
in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (424) 256-2884
Fax: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com
bheikali@faruqilaw.com
NIGHTINGALE HOME: Faces "Glenn" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY GLENN, 7325 Northridge Road Apt. B-9, Madison, OH 44057
and ANNIE HOLLOWAY, 27251 Brush Ave., Apt. 57, Euclid, OH 44132,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. NIGHTINGALE HOME SUPPORT & CARE, INC., 89 Chester
Street, Painesville, OH 44077 and 'S' GENERATION CENTER, INC., 460
Chardon Street, Painesville, OH 44077 and STELLA NSONG
c/o 'S' Generation Center, Inc., 460 Chardon Street, Painesville,
OH 44077, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00006-JG (N.D. Ohio,
January 3, 2017), arises out of Defendants' alleged practices and
policies of misclassifying their home health aides, including
Plaintiffs, as independent contractors, failing to pay them
minimum wages for all hours worked and for overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay
for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case also alleges failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.
Nightingale Home Support & Care Inc. offers a flexible array of
personal support, homemaker, and companion care for senior adults.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-696-5000
Fax: 216-696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
NOVO NORDISK: Faces Class Action Over Collusive Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sagonowsky at Fierce Pharma reports that while all of
biopharma felt the sting of tough talk from President-elect Donald
Trump, Novo Nordisk faced some fresh concerns of its own.
A New York law firm said it filed a class action suit against the
Danish pharma for its role in alleged "collusive price fixing,"
two months after U.S. lawmakers called for an investigation into
the insulin market.
On behalf of a Pennsylvania county's public retirement system,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann sued Novo, CFO Jesper
Brandgaard and former CEO Lars Rebien Sorensen, alleging the
company "reported materially false and misleading earnings and
forecasts" that were "inflated" by price fixing.
The suit also claims the drugmaker "misrepresented and concealed
the true extent" of intense payer pricing pressures, which have
been dragging on insulin makers for some time now.
Novo said it's "aware of the complaint" but does "not comment on
ongoing lawsuits."
The company's shares fell on the news, tracking with most of the
sector as comments made by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump
rattled investor sentiment. Trump lambasted the industry for
"getting away with murder" and promised to institute competitive
bidding to bring down drug prices.
The Novo lawsuit comes shortly after frequent pharma critics Sen.
Bernie Sanders and Rep. Elijah Cummings asked the Justice
Department and Federal Trade Commission to look into whether
insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi have been
colluding on price increases.
"Not only have these pharmaceutical companies raised insulin
prices significantly -- sometimes by double digits overnight -- in
many instances the prices have apparently increased in tandem,"
the lawmakers wrote at the time.
In a blog post about pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) and their
role in Novo's price increases, Jakob Riis, Novo's head of North
America operations, said the company "monitored market conditions
to ensure our prices were competitive with other medicines as part
of our business model."
Adamantly denying the price-fixing charge, Lilly responded that a
complex reimbursement system places an unfair burden on diabetes
patients. "The insulin market in the U.S. is highly competitive,"
the Indianapolis-based drugmaker said. Even though insulin prices
have gone way up in recent years, drugmakers aren't collecting
that payday, Eli Lilly has argued. Instead, it's the PBMs.
For its part, Novo is no stranger to those pressures amid an
ongoing wave of attention to the industry's price-hiking ways. The
company said last month that it would limit itself to single-digit
percentage increases.
NOVO NORDISK: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Novo Nordisk
A/S (NYSE:NVO) to the securities class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and to the
March 13, 2017 Lead Plaintiff deadline.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired NVO between April 30, 2015
and October 27, 2016 and suffered over $200,000 in losses contact
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. For more information visit:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/NVO
or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing NVO@hbsslaw.com.
After repeatedly assuring investors of sales and profit growth,
NVO announced its second consecutive quarter of disappointing
earnings and slashed long-term profit-growth forecasts by 50% on
October 28, 2016. In addition, NVO revealed it was being
investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for potentially
improper arrangements with pharmacy benefits managers who purchase
NVO's insulin products. This news drove the price of the
Company's ADRs down approximately 13%.
"We're focused on NVO's insulin--and other--pricing matters and
Defendants' growth-related statements," said Hagens Berman partner
Reed Kathrein.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding NVO
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new SEC
whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email NVO@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered
in Seattle, Washington with offices in 10 cities. The Firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the Firm and its successes can be
found at www.hbsslaw.com. Read the Firm's Securities Newsletter,
and visit the blog. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw
PARKATLANTA: Faces Suit Over Invalid Tickets
--------------------------------------------
Rebekka Schramm at WTOC reports attorneys officially filed a
class-action lawsuit on January 11 against the company that
monitors curbside parking in the city of Atlanta.
The suit claims PARKatlanta employees routinely issued parking
tickets knowing they were invalid.
"They had knowledge that the system didn't work correctly," said
Eddie Key, one of the attorneys who filed the suit. "So if you
have knowledge that the system doesn't work correctly and you
instruct your employees to continue to give tickets, then you are
knowingly violating your own policy."
Key said he has numerous complainants and whistleblowers who are
ready to testify against PARKatlanta.
"We have a tape that specifically states that employees knew that
their devices weren't working correctly," Key said.
Representatives of PARKatlanta did not immediately return calls or
an email seeking comment.
PARKAtlanta contract ends in March
Since Mayor Kasim Reed confirmed he'd bid out the contract for
parking management in the city, the city has announced a
replacement.
PARKAtlanta's contract went month-to-month in October 2016. With
the new company picked, they're set to take over in March. The new
contract, according to the mayor's office, aims to generate $7
million in revenue for the city, about $1.5 million more than
PARKAtlanta's contract did.
Critics say that's concerning.
"When you turn over a public safety function to a private company,
it's very easy for the situation to become predatory and I think
that's what happened to PARKatlanta," said State Senator Vincent
Fort.
Complaints, internal and external, persisted throughout contract
Since PARKAtlanta started regulating street parking in the city of
Atlanta, they've been the dogged by numerous complaints, both
officially and privately.
In 2012, two insiders spoke to CBS46, saying the company was
predatory in their ticket-writing practices, imposing quotas on
employees of 6-8 tickets per hour.
"At PARKatlanta they are vultures. The only thing they are
concerned with at the end of the day is ticket count," a former
PARKatlanta employee said in 2012.
PDVSOL LLC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Quesada" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Quesada, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PDVSOL, LLC, Giuseppe Imperatori, Fernando
Imperatori, Jose A. Richter, and Carolina Morales, Case No. 1:17-
cv-20004-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 2, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.
The Defendants own and operate gasoline stations and convenient
stores in Miami Dade County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos A. Ziegenhirt, Esq.
CARLOS A. ZIEGENHIRT PA
1190 S. LeJeune Road
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 666-1330
Facsimile: (305) 443-0986
E-mail: carlos@caz-law.com
PDVSOL LLC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Suarez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Camilo Jose Suarez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PDVSOL, LLC, Giuseppe Imperatori, Fernando
Imperatori, Jose A. Richter, and Carolina Morales, Case No. 1:17-
cv-20002-CMA (S.D. Fla., January 2, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.
The Defendants own and operate gasoline stations and convenient
stores in Miami Dade County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos A. Ziegenhirt, Esq.
CARLOS A. ZIEGENHIRT PA
1190 S. LeJeune Road
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 666-1330
Facsimile: (305) 443-0986
E-mail: carlos@caz-law.com
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Brach Eichler Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brach Eichler LLC has filed a class action complaint, ANA LIDIA
ALPIZAR-FALLAS vs. BRIAN BARBOSA and PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
(SOM-L-1588-16), Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against Progressive Insurance Company
("Progressive") concerning present and former Progressive
policyholders who were involved in motor vehicle accidents with
other parties also insured by Progressive within the past six
years preceding the January 9, 2017, filing date. The complaint
was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey venued in Somerset
County.
According to the complaint: "present and former insurance policy
holders of Defendant, Progressive have and continue to be stripped
of their rights to pursue claims against other policy holders of
Progressive Insurance Company due to the Defendants' false and
misleading representations, in violation of state law and
regulations of the State of New Jersey applicable to insurance
companies engaged in claims resolution."
Any questions about this lawsuit may be directed to Edward P.
Capozzi, co-counsel and head of the personal injury practice group
at Brach Eichler, at ecapozzi(at)bracheichler(dot)com or Charles
X. Gormally, co-counsel and chair of the litigation practice at
Brach Eichler, at cgormally(at)bracheichler(dot)com or call
973228- 5700. Both Mr. Capozzi and Mr. Gormally have been
certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court as Certified Civil Trial
Attorneys, a distinction achieved by a small percentage of
practicing attorneys in New Jersey.
ROCHE-BOBOIS: "Enriquez" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Enriquez and Damion Jones, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Roche-Bobois U.S.A., Ltd.
("Roche- Bobois"), European California Furniture, Ltd., Inpala,
Inc., and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. BC6455332 (Cal.
Super. Ct., December 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully deducted wages, unpaid
wages for vested vacation, wages for meal and rest period
violations, reimbursement of business expenses, restitution, as
well as other statutory penalties and damages owed pursuant to
California Labor Code.
The Defendants own and operate a furniture shop located at 8850
Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90048.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
Tsolik Kazandjian, Esq.
BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 708
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 855-3270
Facsimile: (310) 855-3751
E-mail: berenii@employeejustice.law
kazandiian@employeejustice.law
ROGERS POULTRY: "Martinez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Nieto Martinez, an individual, appearing on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rogers Poultry
Co., a California corporation; and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
BC645562, (Cal. Super., January 4, 2017), seeks restitution of all
unpaid wages and other monies withheld, accrued and vested
vacation wages due Plaintiff immediately upon termination of
employment, disgorgement of profits received as a result of
Defendants' unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practices,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and
such further relief under California Labor Laws and Unfair
Competition Law.
Martinez worked as a packer for Rogers Poultry Co. for
approximately 17 years until approximately February 23, 2016, at
their processing facilities located at 2020 E. 67th Street, Los
Angeles, California 90001, and its neighboring processing plant
located at 2004 E. 67th Street, Los Angeles, 12 California 90001.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg A. Farley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY
880 Apollo Street, Suite 222
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 445-4024
Facsimile: (310) 445-4109
- and -
Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818)609-0892
SAMSUNG: Faces Suit Over Potentially Dangerous Washing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Rossen and Anneke Foster at Today reports that last November,
Samsung announced it was recalling nearly 3 million defective
washing machines. But now some consumers say the washers are still
dangerous even after the company vowed to fix them.
Those washing machines are in millions of homes right now. Some
have shaken so violently that they explode. At least nine
homeowners have reported injuries, including one report of a
broken jaw.
Now some consumers are saying that Samsung is botching the recall,
leaving them with potentially dangerous machines and no way out.
"I've called numerous times, but I never get any calls back," the
owner of one washing machine affected by the recall told TODAY
national investigative correspondent Jeff Rossen.
Another washer owner, Britney Quimby, a mother of three, said,
"I'm afraid to do laundry because it could hurt my kids."
Lori Andrus, Esq. -- lori.andrus@andrusanderson.com -- with Andrus
Anderson LLP, an attorney advising on a proposed class action suit
against Samsung, called the affected washing machines "ticking
time bombs in people's homes. It might not have gone off yet; it
might go off on the very next load."
In a statement to NBC News, Samsung said:
"Our in-home repair has been tested and validated by an
independent engineering firm, and approved by the Consumer Product
Safety Commission. We have successfully completed hundreds of
thousands of in-home repairs. Consumers who choose the in-home
repair are provided an additional one year warranty regardless of
the age of their washer.
We have directly contacted more than two million consumers and
have multiple ways for them to reach us. Wait time for callers is
an average of 20 seconds. Repairs on average are completed in 7
business days. We encourage anyone who has an affected washer to
contact us at 1-866-264-5636 or at samsung.com/us/tlw."
The following model numbers are included in the recall depending
on the serial number:
WA40J3000AW/A2
WA45H7000AP/A2
WA45H7000AW/A2
WA45H7200AW/A2
WA45K7600AW/A2
WA45K7100AW/A2
WA48H7400AW/A2
WA48J7700AW/A2
WA48J7770AP/A2
WA48J7770AW/A2
WA50K8600AV/A2
WA50K8600AW/A2
WA52J8700AP/A2
WA52J8700AW/A2
WA400PJHDWR/AA
WA422PRHDWR/AA
WA456DRHDSU/AA
WA456DRHDWR/AA
WA476DSHASU/A1
WA476DSHAWR/A1
WA484DSHASU/A1
WA484DSHAWR/A1
WA48H7400AP/A2
WA50F9A6DSW/A2
WA50F9A7DSP/A2
WA50F9A7DSW/A2
WA50F9A8DSP/A2
WA50F9A8DSW/A2
WA52J8060AW/A2
WA5451ANW/XAA
WA5471ABP/XAA
WA5471ABW/XAA
WA56H9000AP/A2
WA56H9000AW/A2
SEATTLE GENETICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Seattle Genetics
Inc. (SGEN) ("Seattle Genetics" or the "Company") securities
during the period between October 27, 2016 and December 23, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until March 13, 2017
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Seattle Genetics securities during the Class Period.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Seattle Genetics'
vadastuximab talirine presents a significant risk of fatal
hepatotoxicity and that the Company had overstated the viability
of vadastuximab talirine as a treatment for acute myeloid leukemia
("AML").
According to the complaint, following a December 27, 2016 press
release announcing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had
placed a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on several early
stage trials of vadastuximab talirine to evaluate the potential
risk of hepatotoxicity, the value of Seattle Genetics shares
declined significantly.
If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Seattle Genetics securities purchased on or after October 27,
2016 and held through the revelation of negative information
during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to
learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a
lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit
our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information
regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.
SHIRE PLC: Sued in Mass. Over Unlawful Reverse Payment Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
FWK Holdings, LLC on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Shire PLC, Shire LLC, Shire U.S., Inc., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-12653 (D. Mass., December 30, 2016),
arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal reverse payment
agreement in the market for the attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) drug Intuniv.
Shire PLC, Shire LLC, and Shire U.S., Inc. operates a specialty
biopharmaceutical company headquartered at 300 Shire Way,
Lexington, Massachusetts 02421.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc. develop, manufacture, market, and sell generic pharmaceutical
products in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Kristen A. Johnston, Esq.
Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
davidn@hbsslaw.com
lauren@hbsslaw.com
- and -
John D. Radice, Esq.
Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
34 Sunset Blvd
Long Beach, NJ 08008
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Moran, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 224-1500
E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
jmoran@vaneklaw.com
jbjork@vaneklaw.com
- and -
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
Matthew T. Slater, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
mslater@sperling-law.com
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces Suit over Applicant Rejection
----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Legal News Line reports that a Colorado man is
suing Starbucks, alleging violation of federal law.
Jonathan Santiago Rosario of Castle Rock filed a class action
complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Dec. 21 in U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington against Starbucks Corporation, alleging the
defendant denied the plaintiff's employment based on wrong
information from Accurate Background Inc., violating the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, Rosario suffered monetary damages from
being denied employment due to inaccurate background information.
The plaintiff alleges Starbucks failed to provide the plaintiff a
copy of the report or the opportunity to correct any errors found
on the report.
Rosario seeks trial by jury, actual, statutory, and punitive
damages, interest, all legal fees and all other relief the court
deems just. He is represented by attorneys Beth E. Terrell and
Erika L Nusser of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC in Seattle, and
by James A. Francis, John Soumilas and Lauren KW Brennan of
Francis & Mailman PC in Philadelphia.
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Jan. 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
StoneMor Partners L.P. ("StoneMor" or the "Company") (NYSE: STON)
securities between January 19, 2012 and October 27, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). StoneMor investors have until
January 20, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their StoneMor investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.
According to the complaint filed in this class action, during the
Class Period StoneMor made false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose: that the Company's reported non-GAAP financial
metrics were materially misleading and concealed the truth about
the Company's true financial condition; that the main purpose of
StoneMor's regular debt and equity offerings were to pay
distributions to unitholders instead of pay down indebtedness
under the Company's revolving credit facility as publicly stated;
and that as a result of the above stated, the Company's statements
about its business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On September 2, 2016, StoneMor disclosed that it would restate its
financials to correct numerous mistakes. Shortly thereafter, on
October 27, 2016, StoneMor reduced its quarterly cash distribution
by 50%, and on October 28, 2016 StoneMor's share price fell over
44%.
Then on November 9, 2016, StoneMor announced that it would also be
amending its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2015, as well as its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended on June 30,
2016 and March 31, 2016. On this news, shares of StoneMor fell
over 5% to close at just $8.57 per share on November 9, 2016,
thereby injuring investors.
If you purchased shares of StoneMor during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than January 20, 2017 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
TESLA MOTORS: Faces "Son" Suit Over Defective Model X Vehicle
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ji Chang Son, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and K.M.S., a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem
Yun Soo Oh v. Tesla Motors, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-02282 (C.D.
Cal., December 30, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of
the Defendants misrepresentation and failure to disclose that
Model X vehicle is defective for its lack of an adequate fail safe
system.
Tesla Motors, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
- and -
Benedict O. Kwon, Esq.
Stephen L. Ram, Esq.
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C.
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422
Telephone: (949) 725-4000
Facsimile: (949) 725-4100
E-mail: bkwon@sycr.com
sram@sycr.com
TG THERAPEUTICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against TG Therapeutics, Inc.
("TG Therapeutics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TGTX) and certain of
its officers, and is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased TG Therapeutics securities
between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are advised to join
this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/tgtx.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company that manufactures,
develops and markets new treatments for B-cell, malignancies and
autoimmune diseases. The Company develops TG-1101 and TGR-1202,
two treatments against hematological malignancies and autoimmune
diseases. The Complaint further suggests that on September 17,
2015, TG Therapeutics announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) had contacted them due to a Special Protocol
Assessment on the make of a Phase 3 clinical trial for TG-1101 and
TGR-1202.
This Phase 3 trial, the GENUINE trial, was to demonstrate that TG-
1101 could prove a surge in the total response rate and
progression-free survival ("PFS") in 330 existing patients with
certain cancer cell mutations.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
failed to disclose material information regarding the Phase 3
trial, and instead hyped that it is the "best-in-class" treatment,
"successful" and "a novel chemo-free treatment option."
Furthermore, TG Therapeutics did not set up an adequate screening
mechanism in the GENUINE enrolling sites and did not enroll
patients at the required rate for the study to be successful.
Additionally, the trial did not attract 330 patients, contrary to
TG Therapeutics' statements.
On October 13, 2016, TG Therapeutics announced that it filed an
amended protocol with the Food and Drug Administration for its
leukemia drug combination, GENUINE Phase 3 Trial, and revealed
that it no longer benefits from its previously negotiated Special
Protocol Assessment with the FDA. Following this news, TG
Therapeutics, stock dropped about $0.38 per share to close at
$6.85 on that same day.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/tgtxor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
TG Therapeutics you have until March 13, 2017 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com
Lundin Law Firm Also Files Suit
Accesswire reports Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm,
announces a class action lawsuit against TG Therapeutics, Inc.
("TG Therapeutics" or the "Company") (TGTX). Investors, who
purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics shares between
September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016 inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm 60 days within this
notice, also known as the lead plaintiff motion deadline.
To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.
No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.
TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company that manufactures,
develops, and markets new treatments for B-cell, malignancies, and
autoimmune diseases within the United Stated. The Company produces
two treatments against hematological malignancies and autoimmune
diseases, TG-1101 and TGR-1202. The Complaint suggests that on
September 17, 2015, TG Therapeutics announced that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) had contacted them due to a Special
Protocol Assessment on the make of a Phase 3 clinical trial for
TG-1101 and TGR-1202.
This Phase 3 trial, the GENUINE trial, was to demonstrate that TG-
1101 could demonstrate a surge in the overall response rate and
progression-free survival ("PFS") in 330 existing patients with
certain cancer cell mutations.
As per the Complaint, TG Therapeutics officials failed to disclose
important information regarding the Phase 3 trial, instead
informing shareholders that it is the "best-in-class" treatment,
"successful", and "a novel chemo-free treatment option."
Furthermore, TG Therapeutics did not put forth an adequate
screening mechanism in the GENUINE enrolling sites and did not
enroll patients at the required rate for the study to be
successful. Lastly, the trial did not attract 330 patients,
contrary to the Company's statements.
On October 13, 2016, TG Therapeutics put out a statement revealing
that it had put out an amended GENUINE Phase 3 trial protocol with
the FDA. The same day, TheStreet released an article suggesting
that TG Therapeutics has a long history of poor management. The
article also showed that the Company halted enrollment for the
GENUINE trial by a third, removed important efficacy endpoints,
and generally exposed the company to more risk. When this
information was revealed to the public, TG Therapeutics' stock
declined almost 27%, causing investors severe harm.
THERANOS INC: Arizona AG Preparing to Sue Company
-------------------------------------------------
Sy Mukherjee at Fortune reports that it may be time to add another
lawsuit to Silicon Valley upstart Theranos' troubles.
Documents from Arizona's Attorney General's office indicate that
the state is preparing to sue Elizabeth Holmes' once-vaunted, now-
dwindling blood testing outfit, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The specific files are bidding proposals for outside counsel to
represent the state in a lawsuit.
"The purpose of this contract is to retain Outside Counsel to aid
the Arizona Attorney General's Office (the AGO) in commencing
legal action against Theranos, Inc. and its closely related
subsidiaries for violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
arising out of Theranos Inc.'s long-running scheme of deceptive
acts and misrepresentations relating to the capabilities and
operation of Theranos blood testing equipment, including but not
limited to deceptive acts and misrepresentations made to Arizona
consumers in connection with Theranos Wellness Centers in Arizona
and California," states the document.
Theranos operated about 40 "Wellness Centers" where it offered its
blood testing services -- services that ostensibly used diagnostic
tech that Theranos claimed was revolutionary, but thousands of
whose results the company had to eventually void for inaccuracies.
The firm eventually decided to shut down its Wellness Centers and
slash its workforce nearly in half in order to concentrate on a
different technology called the "miniLab."
Theranos is already facing a consumer class action suit over the
inaccurate diagnostic results; a breach of contract suit by former
partner Walgreens (WBA, -0.12%); and an investor class action
alleging "continuous lies from the company's CEO."Theranos told
Fortune that is has "no comment" on the potential suit, and
emphasized that it denies the allegations in the various other
lawsuits currently under way.
WATTS REGULATOR: April 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
If You Have a Watts Water Heater Connector or a FloodSafe Brand
Connector You Could Get Benefits from Two Class Action Settlements
This Notice may affect your rights. Please read it carefully.
1. Why is this Notice being provided?
A Court authorized this Notice because you have a right to know
about proposed Settlements of two class action lawsuits, and to
know your options before the Court decides whether to give final
approval to the Settlements. This Notice explains the lawsuits,
the Settlements, your legal rights, what benefits are available,
who may be eligible for those benefits, and how to get them.
There are two separate class actions in which proposed settlements
have been reached. The Water Heater connector Settlement was made
in the case of Sharp, et al. v. Watts Regulator Co., Case No.
8:16-cv-00200-JFB-TDT, which alleged that Watts' Water Heater
connectors and warnings on those connectors were defective. The
FloodSafe Settlement resolves the case Klug, et al. v. Watts
Regulator Co., Case No. 8:15-cv-00061-JFB-TDT, which alleged that
FloodSafe connectors and warnings on these connectors were
defective. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska is overseeing the
Water Heater and FloodSafe connector class actions. The people
who sued are called the "Plaintiffs" and the company being sued,
Watts Regulator Co. ("Watts"), is the "Defendant."
2. What are these lawsuits about?
The lawsuits allege that Watts:
-- Designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed and/or sold
Water Heater and FloodSafe connectors that were defective;
-- Knew of the defective condition of these connectors; and
-- Failed to provide warnings to prevent failure of the
connectors.
The lawsuits allege that Watts' actions led to the failure of the
Water Heater and FloodSafe connectors. The lawsuits ask for
replacement connectors to be provided to those who purchased
Water Heater and FloodSafe connectors and for money to be paid to
those who paid to repair property damage as a result of the
failure of the connectors. Watts denies all the claims and
allegations in the lawsuits. Watts maintains that its Water
Heater and FloodSafe connectors are not defective in any respect
and that any failures are the result of other factors (such as
improper installation, misuse, or products being at the end of
their lifespan). Watts has successfully defended itself on these
grounds in the past.
3. What is a class action?
In a class action, one or more people called "Class
Representatives" sue on behalf of all people who have similar
claims. All of these people are the "Class" or "Settlement Class
Members." A single court resolves the issues for all Settlement
Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the
Settlements (see Question 16).
4. Why is there a Settlement?
The Courts did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Watts.
Instead, both sides agreed to settle these cases to avoid the cost
and risk of further litigation and trial. The Settlements do not
mean that any law was broken or that Watts did anything wrong.
Watts denies all legal claims and allegations in
this case. The Class Representatives and their lawyers think the
Settlements are best for all Settlement Class Members.
WHO ARE IN THE SETTLEMENTS
To see if you will be affected by the Settlements or if you can
get a payment from it, you need to decide if you are a Settlement
Class Member.
5. Am I part of the Settlement?
The Settlements include anyone who owns or owned (or leases or
leased) a residence or other structure located in the United
States containing a Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe connector
after November 4, 2008. This includes any person or entity that
suffered property damage and/or paid to repair property damage
caused by the failure of a Watts Water Heater or a FloodSafe
connector.
The Settlement Class, as approved by the Court, is formally
defined as follows:
"All individuals and entities that own or owned, or lease or
leased a residence or other structure located in the United States
containing a Water Heater or a FloodSafe Connector after November
4, 2008."
6. How do I know if I have a Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe
connector?
The following can help you identify whether you may have a Water
Heater or a FloodSafe connector covered by these Settlements:
-- A FloodSafe connector must have a FloodSafe automatic water
shutoff device on the connector.
-- A Water Heater connector must have a red disc between the
crimp and fitting at each end of the connector.
A label attached to either a FloodSafe or Water Heater connector
that identifies Watts, Watts Regulator, Anderson Barrows, Savard,
Everbilt, Ace Hardware, Wolverine Brass, Do-It-Best,
Grainger, CalFlex, MainLine, Aqua-Flo, Belanger, Danco,
Flexconnex, Diamond Back, Lincoln, Mabe, PlumbMaster, PlumBest,
PurePro, Kenney, Electrolux or Kenmore may qualify if the
connector has the above physical features.
7. Are there exceptions to being included in the Settlements?
Yes. The following are not included in the Settlements:
-- Anyone who resolved their Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe
connector claims through settlement or final judgment
-- Watts and their affiliates
-- Anyone who sold or distributed a Watts connector, unless
they actually installed a Water Heater or a FloodSafe connector in
its premises
-- The presiding judge and his immediate family
-- Anyone who timely requests to be excluded from the Class
8. What if I am not sure whether I am included in the Settlements?
If you are not sure whether you are in the Settlement Class, or
have any other questions about the Settlement, call 877-845-3575
or visit www.ConnectorSettlements.com. Or you may write to
Connector Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4259, Portland, OR 97208-
4259.
9. Who can file a claim under the Settlements?
To be eligible to file a claim for a payment under the
Settlements, a Settlement Class Member must own a Water Heater or
a FloodSafe connector, or had property damage and/or paid to
repair property damage as a result of a failed Watts Water Heater
or FloodSafe connector.
SETTLEMENT BENEFITS -- WHAT YOU GET IF YOU QUALIFY
10. What are the benefits of the Settlements?
Under these Settlements, Watts will pay $14 million ($10 million
into a settlement fund for Water Heater connectors and $4 million
into a settlement fund for FloodSafe connectors). After the cost
of all notice, administration, litigation expenses, and attorneys'
fees are paid out of this fund, the rest
will be distributed to Settlement Class Members who file claims as
described below:
CAUSE OF CLAIM
Replacement of a
Water Heater or
FloodSafe
connector
Property damages
due to failure of a
Water Heater or
FloodSafe
connector
CLAIMS PERIOD
One year after final
approval of the
Settlements
One year after final
approval for property
damage from November
4, 2008 to November 4,
2014. Four years after
final approval for claims
arising after November
4, 2014.
PAYMENT AMOUNT
$10 for each eligible
connector (up to two
Water Heater and two
FloodSafe Connectors
per residence or
structure). Maximum of
$40.
Up to 25% of the costs
of repair. Minimum of
$25.
PROOF REQUIRED?
Yes
Yes
Replacement of Connectors
For eligible claims submitted within one year of final approval of
the Settlements, Settlement Class Members can receive a cash
payment of $10 for each Water Heater and FloodSafe connector (up
to two water heater connectors and two FloodSafe connectors per
residence or other structure) that they replace. The maximum cash
payment for replacement of connectors is $40.
To receive a payment, you must provide proof that you own or
possess a Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe connector by providing:
(1) a label for the connector or a photo of the connector's label
or the connector itself and (2) a receipt for purchasing the
replacement connector. There is no restriction on what brand
connector you purchase to replace your Watts Water Heater or
FloodSafe connector.
Payment of Property Damages Due to Failure
For eligible claims, Settlement Class Members can recover up to
25% of documented costs of repairs for property damage caused by
the failure of a Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe connector, with a
minimum recovery of $25.
The Claims Administrator will review claims to determine whether
they are eligible and timely, and pay the amount of the claims.
Claims for damage that occurred from November 4, 2008 to November
4, 2014 must be submitted within one year after final approval of
the Settlements. Claims for damage that occurred after November
4, 2014, must be made within four years after final approval.
Valid claims will be paid once a year throughout the four-year
claims period.
Money will be added to the settlement fund in installments. If
the amount of approved claims is greater than the amount of money
available in the settlement fund, the Claims Administrator will
reduce the initial payments made to Settlement Class Members to an
amount less than 25% of their approved Claim to make sure that all
eligible Settlement Class Members receive a payment. If money is
left in the fund at the end of the annual payment process, the
Claims Administrator may provide a "catch up" payment to
Settlement Class Members whose payments had been reduced to
proportionally increase their total payment amounts. These
payments will not exceed 25% of the property damage for each
Claim.
To support your claim, you must submit the following
documentation:
-- A completed Claim Form
-- All proofs of payment for repair of property damage caused
by a failed Water Heater or FloodSafe connector
-- The Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe connector; all available
labels, packaging; photographs of the connector and the
characteristics that qualify it as a Watts product; and any
purchase receipts for the Water Heater or FloodSafe connector
HOW TO GET A PAYMENT
11. What do I need to do to participate in the Settlements?
Follow the instructions on the Claim Form to receive a payment
under these Settlements. All Claim Forms must be submitted along
with any necessary supporting documentation or information.
Claims may be submitted online or mailed by first-class United
States Mail, postage prepaid, to the Claims Administrator:
Connector Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4259, Portland, OR 97208-
4259.
You cannot submit your Claim Form and accompanying materials by
telephone. Even if you submit your claim form online, you must
mail the Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe connector, or other
qualifying evidence confirming that the connector is a Watts
product, to the Claims Administrator. If you change your address
and want to receive a Claim Form or any payment owed to you at
your new address, you should notify the Claims Administrator of
your new address by sending written notice of your change of
address to the Claims Administrator at the address above.
Claim Forms are available online at www.ConnectorSettlements.com
or by calling 1- 877-845-3575. Or you may request one by writing
to Connector Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4259, Portland,
OR 97208-4259.
12. How will the claims process work?
Validation of Claims for Benefits. The Claims Administrator will
start reviewing all timely Claim Forms after the final approval of
the Settlements. The Claims Administrator will evaluate your
claim based on all the information and documentation you provided
and within written guidelines (available at
www.ConnectorSettlements.com).
Denial of Claims for Benefit. If your Claim Form and accompanying
materials do not meet all of the requirements of the Settlements,
the Claims Administrator will deny your claim as "invalid,"
you will not receive any payment, and you will be informed in
writing of that decision. A Special Master will be available for
a Settlement Class Member filing a claim for property damage to
appeal a denial by the Claims Administrator. Instructions for
appealing a decision of the Claims Administrator for a property
damage claim will be provided with all denied claims.
Payment of Validated Claims for Benefits. If you submit a Claim
Form and the Claims Administrator determines that your Claim Form
and the accompanying materials are valid, the Claims Administrator
will send you a payment. Payments will be made annually, but may
be broken into an initial payment and a second "catch up" payment.
No Payment Until After Appeals Are Resolved. The Claims
Administrator will not make any payments to Settlement Class
Members until the Court grants final approval of the Settlements
and until any appeals are resolved. During the appeals process,
the Claims Administrator will continue to accept claims.
13. What am I giving up to get a payment?
If the Settlements become final, Settlement Class Members who
submit a claim or do nothing will be "releasing" Watts from all of
the Released Claims as described in paragraphs 86-93 of the
Settlement Agreements. This means you will no longer be able to
sue Watts regarding any of the claims described in the Settlement
Agreements.
The Settlement Agreements are available at
www.ConnectorSettlements.com. The Settlement Agreements provide
more detail regarding the release and describes the released
claims with specific descriptions in necessary, accurate, legal
terminology, so read it carefully. You can talk to the law
firms representing the Settlement Classes listed in the section
"The Lawyers Representing You" for free or you can, at your own
expense, talk to another lawyer if you have any questions about
the released claims or what they mean.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENTS
If you do not want a payment from the proposed Settlements and you
want to keep the right to sue Watts about the legal issues in
these cases, then you must take steps to get out of the
Settlements. This is called asking to be excluded from, or
sometimes called "opting out," of the Settlement Class.
14. If I exclude myself, can I get anything from this Settlement?
No. If you exclude yourself, you may not apply for any benefits
under the Settlements and you cannot object to the proposed
Settlements. If you are excluded, you may sue or bring a
different lawsuit against Watts in the future. You will not be
bound by these class action settlements.
15. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue later?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue
Watts for all of the claims resolved by these Settlements. You
must exclude yourself from the Settlement Classes to start or
continue your own lawsuit relating to the claims in these cases.
16. How do I exclude myself from the Settlements?
If you do not object to the settlement, and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlements and the Settlement Classes, you must
send the Claims Administrator a written request that contains the
following:
1. Your full name, current address, telephone number, and email
address
2. A specific request to opt out of one or both of the
Settlements
3. Whether the Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe connector failure
caused Property Damage
4. Identify the:
a. Number of Watts Water Heater and/or FloodSafe connectors that
you have (and proof that they are Watts connectors)
b. Date of purchase or installation of any failed Water Heater or
FloodSafe connector
c. Date of failure and an estimate of the amount of damages
5. Your signature (even if represented by an attorney) and the
date on which you signed it
6. If you are an insurer, the written consent of your insured or
a sworn statement that the insurer is
the legal owner of the claim with the right to control the claim
7. Your attorney's signature, if you are represented by counsel
You must mail your completed request for exclusion by March 7,
2017 to: Connector Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4259, Portland,
OR 97208-4259
If you do not file your request on time and include the
information above, you will remain a Settlement Class Member. That
means you will lose any opportunity to exclude yourself from the
Settlement(s), and your rights will be determined in this lawsuit
by the Settlement Agreement(s), if it receives final judicial
approval.
You cannot ask to be excluded on the phone, by email, or at the
website.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
17. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court named Shanon J. Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., Bryan
L. Clobes of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Gregory F.
Coleman of Greg Coleman Law, P.C. and Joseph G. Sauder
of McCune Wright LLP as Lead Counsel. The Court also named other
attorneys to protect your interests and a full list of those
attorneys is available at www.ConnectorSettlements.com. You will
not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented
by your own lawyer in this case, you may hire one at your own
expense.
If you hire your own attorney, your attorney must file an
appearance with the Clerk of Court, and must send a copy, by
first-class United States Mail, to Class Counsel and Watts'
counsel at the addresses in Question 19, postmarked no later than
March 7, 2017. If you do not exclude yourself from the
Settlements, you will continue to be a Settlement Class Member,
even if you are represented by your own attorney. You will be
responsible for any fees and costs charged by your own attorney.
18. How will the administrative costs and attorneys' fees be paid?
Watts agreed to pay the costs of class notice and claims
administration, including the costs of mailing this Notice and of
distributing any payments owed to Settlement Class Members under
the Settlements. If the Settlements are approved by the Court,
Class Counsel will ask the Court for reasonable attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of litigation costs of up to 30% of the gross
settlement amount. Also, Class Counsel will ask the Court for a
service award of $5,000 to each Class Representative.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENTS
19. How do I tell the Court if I do not like the Settlements?
If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Classes, you
may object to the certification of the Settlement Classes, to the
terms of the proposed Settlements, or to Class Counsel's request
for attorneys' fees, expenses or the request for service awards.
To do so, you (or your own attorney) must provide your objection
in writing by first class mail to Lead Class Counsel and Watts'
counsel no later than March 7, 2017 with the following
information:
1. The name of the lawsuit(s) affected by your objection, either
or both Sharp, et al. v. Watts Regulator Co., Case No. 8:16-cv-
00200-JFB-TDT (Water Heater connectors), and/or Klug v. Watts
Regulator Co., Case No. 8:15-cv-00061-JFB-TDT (FloodSafe
connectors).
2. Your full name, current address, and telephone number.
3. Whether, on the date of your written objection, you own, owned,
lease, or leased a residence or other structure in the United
States containing a Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe connector.
4. The address of the property(ies) that contain or have contained
the Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe connector.
5. Proof that your residence or structure contains a Watts Water
Heater or a FloodSafe connector (in the form of photographs,
installation records, receipts etc.).
6. The exact nature of your objection, the facts underlying the
objection, and whether or not you intend to appear at the Final
Fairness Hearing.
7. All evidence and supporting papers (including, but not limited
to, all briefs, written evidence, and declarations) that you want
the Court to consider in support of your objection.
8. Whether you (or your attorney if you are represented) have
objected to a class action settlement more than two times before.
If so, identify those cases by case name, court, and case number.
9. Your signature (even if represented by an attorney) and the
date on which you signed it.
10. Your attorney's signature (if you are represented by counsel).
If you want to appear at the Fairness Hearing, on your own behalf
(or through your own attorney) and speak in court, you need to
file a Notice of Appearance with the Court and the Claims
Administrator. This Notice needs to list (in detail) the subjects
you will talk about. You need to mail copies of the Notice of
Appearance to Class Counsel and Watts' counsel, postmarked no
later than March 7, 2017 to the following addresses:
CLASS COUNSEL
Shanon J. Carson
Berger & Montague, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Bryan L. Clobes
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP
1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Gregory F. Coleman
Greg Coleman Law, P.C.
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Joseph G. Sauder
McCune Wright LLP
555 Lancaster Ave
Berwyn, PA 19312
COUNSEL FOR WATTS
David S. MacCuish
Todd B. Benoff
Alston & Bird LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Keith E. Smith
Jodi Dyan Oley
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 South 16th Street
22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
If you do not file your objection on time and include the
information above, you will lose the opportunity to have your
objection considered at the Fairness Hearing. You will also not
be able to object to approval of the Settlements or appeal any of
the Courts' decisions in connection with the Settlements.
20. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be
excluded?
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like
something about the Settlement. You can object only if you stay
in the Settlement Classes. Excluding yourself is telling the
Court that you do not want to be part of the Settlement Classes.
If you exclude yourself, you cannot object to the Settlements and
you will not be eligible to apply for any benefits under the
Settlements because the cases no longer affect you.
THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING
21. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlements?
On April 12, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hold a public
hearing in Courtroom #3 of the United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska, located at the U.S. Courthouse, 111
South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska 68102. The Court will decide
whether the Settlement Classes were properly certified and whether
the Settlements are fair, adequate, and reasonable and should be
finally approved. The Court will also consider Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and expense reimbursement and any
objections. This hearing may be delayed or rescheduled by the
Court without further notice to the Settlement Classes. Settlement
Class Members who object to the Settlements
are not required to attend the Fairness Hearing. If you want to
speak in Court to object to the Settlements, either personally (or
through your own attorney), you must notify the Court of your
intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing (see Question 19).
22. Do I have to attend the Fairness Hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have
regarding the Settlements. However, you are welcome to attend the
hearing at your own expense. If you send in a written
objection, you do not have to attend the Fairness Hearing to
discuss your objection. If you mailed your written objection on
time, the Court will consider it. Your own lawyer may attend the
Fairness Hearing at your expense, but their attendance is not
necessary.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
23. How do I get more information?
This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlements. More details are
in the Settlement Agreements.
You can view the Settlement Agreements at
www.ConnectorSettlements.com. You may also write
with questions to Connector Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4259,
Portland, OR 97208-4259. You can get a Claim Form at the website,
or have a Claim Form mailed to you by calling 877-845-3575.
If you have questions for Class Counsel, you may contact them at
the address listed above in Question 19. You may also get advice
and guidance from your own private attorney at your own
expense.
Please do not write or telephone the Court, Watts, or any Watts
sales representative or agent for information about the
Settlements or these lawsuits.
WESTERN REFINING: "Vasan" Seeks to Block Merger Deal with Tesoro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Srini Vasan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Paul L. Foster, Sigmund L. Cornelius, L.
Frederick Francis, Robert J. Hassler, Brian J. Hogan, Jeff A.
Stevens, Scott D. Weaver, Western Refining, Inc., Tesoro
Corporation, Tahoe Merger Sub 1, Inc. and Tahoe Merger Sub 2, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00002, (W.D. Tex., January 4, 2017),
seeks to (i) enjoin Defendants from consummating a merger with
Tesoro and (ii) recover damages resulting from violations of the
Exchange Act.
Under the merger agreement, Merger Sub 1 will merge with and into
Western, with Western surviving the merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Tesoro. Western will then be merged with and into
Merger Sub 2, with Merger Sub 2 surviving as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Tesoro. Western stockholders will receive $37.30 per
share of Western stock or receive 0.4350 shares of Tesoro.
Plaintiff alleges that this is 24.4% lower than Western's 52-Week
high of $46.65 per share, and that the Company's financial
advisor, Barclays, earned millions in fees.
Western Refining, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is
headquartered in El Paso, Texas. Western is an independent
refining and marketing company with retail service stations and
convenience stores in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Texas and Wisconsin. Paul L. Foster, Sigmund L. Cornelius, L.
Frederick Francis, Robert J. Hassler, Brian J. Hogan, Jeff A.
Stevens and Scott D. Weaver are members of its board of directors.
Tesoro Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Antonio, Texas. Tesoro is an independent refiner and marketer of
petroleum products.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 227-7720
Email: tbilek@bileklaw.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Fax: (212) 601-2610
ZIMMER BIOMET: Jan. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Accesswire reports that Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") announces a
class action lawsuit against Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
("Zimmer" or the "Company") (NYSE: ZBH). Investors, who purchased
or otherwise acquired shares between September 7, 2016 and October
31, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact
the Firm in advance of the January 31, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.
If you purchased shares of Zimmer during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.
There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.
The complaint states that during the Class Period, Zimmer made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations,
and prospects. The complaint alleges the following: that issues
within the supply chain caused a decline in order fulfillment,
particularly within the knee and hip portfolios; that, because of
this, Zimmer would not realize its revenues and profit as expected
and; that as a result of the above, the Company's statements
regarding its business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On October 31, 2016, the Company sent a press release reporting
third quarter 2016 financial results. Zimmer reported net sales of
$1.83 billion, and lowered guidance for the full year 2016 at
$7.630 billion to $7.650 billion, a decline from the $7.68 billion
to $7.715 billion estimated in July. Zimmer claims weak sales are
due to a change in the supply chain, leading to a lack of
available implants and instrument sets during the quarter.
In a phone meeting with investors after the above release, the
Company stated: "Third quarter revenue was below our expectations,
primarily due to execution issues within our large joint supply
chain, which led to a degradation in order fulfillment rates late
in the quarter as well as our performance in dental . . . As a
consequence, we underestimated demand for certain key cross-sell
brands within our existing customer base, leading to a depletion
of our safety stocks and also affecting our ability to capitalize
on new customer opportunities."
Shares of Zimmer fell $17.15 per share, or nearly 14%, to close on
October 31, 2016 at $105.40 per share, causing investors harm.
If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, at no charge to you,
or if you have questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at
joon@khanglaw.com.
Contact:
Joon M. Khang, Esq.
Telephone: 949-419-3834
Facsimile: 949-225-4474
Email: joon@khanglaw.com
* Financial Recovery Appoints Michael Cotter Chief Revenue Officer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Patterson at Finance Magnates reports Financial Recovery
Technologies (FRT), a provider of securities class action recovery
services, has placed Michael Cotter in the newly created role of
Chief Revenue Officer. He joins the company with immediate effect,
per a company statement.
In his new role Mr. Cotter will continue to develop and lead the
group's global team, focusing on a multitude of sales and
marketing functions. In this capacity he will also be managing an
expanding network of industry leading business partners. He will
be based out of Boston.
Mr. Cotter joins FRT after a lengthy career in the financial
services industry, spanning over two decades. Most recently he
worked as an Executive Advisor at Trefis. Additional stints
include stops at TiE-Boston, Nasdaq OMX as its Senior Vice
President, as well as seven years at Thomson Reuters in several
senior roles. He has been an Executive Advisor with FRT since
April 2016, according to information made public on his Linkedin
profile.
According to Rob Adler, President at FRT, in a recent statement on
the appointment: "Mike has an outstanding track record of
shattering revenue goals and targets at every stage of his career.
We've already made the jump from start-up to market leader, but
there is still tremendous market and business opportunity in front
of us. Mike will help FRT maximize the opportunities for growth
that are in front of us."
"FRT's deep expertise and leading technology platforms set us
apart from our competitors, and our year over year growth
validates that. On this trajectory, we'll further cement our model
as the de facto standard for securities class action recoveries,
and secure a lot of unclaimed money for current and future clients
along the way," added Mr. Cotter in an accompanying statement.
* JND Legal Administration Appoints Jennifer Keough as CEO
----------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration today appointed Jennifer Keough as the
company's new chief executive officer, to oversee its
comprehensive service lines in class action, mass tort, corporate
restructuring, eDiscovery and government services. One of the
company's three co-founders, Keough previously served as managing
director of JND Legal Administration and CEO of the company's
class action division. She has decades of experience as a leading
legal administration executive and is recognized as a champion of
gender diversity and mentorship in her field. She is now also the
only female CEO in the legal administration industry.
As part of the leadership refresh, fellow co-founders Neil Zola
and David Isaac are both taking on the role of executive co-
chairman, where they will drive strategic planning and business
development for the company, and help Keough lead day-to-day
operations across its service offerings.
JND Legal Administration also established a new 11,000 square foot
Seattle, Wash. headquarters, in the waterfront district, to expand
its corporate and operational presence. The Seattle team will work
across all JND service lines to manage large, complex cases.
Additionally, the company launched a new website, www.JNDLA.com,
completing its brand unification by bringing its integrated
service lines under one digital roof, to provide a one-stop online
resource for information about JND and its comprehensive suite of
legal administration and management services.
"JND Legal Administration provides the most comprehensive legal
administration services in our market," said David Isaac,
executive co-chairman of JND Legal Administration. "With Jennifer
as our new CEO, and the launch our new headquarters and website,
we are even better equipped to harness our integrated services to
benefit our clients."
"This is an incredibly exciting time for JND Legal Administration.
I've worked with Jennifer for more than 15 years, and I know
there's no one better for the job," said Neil Zola, executive co-
chairman of JND Legal Administration. "Jennifer is one of the best
talents in the industry. With her experience and vision at the
helm of JND, the company's potential is remarkable."
Throughout her 20-year-career, Keough has managed and participated
in some of the largest legal administration cases in the country,
including the BP Deepwater Horizon Settlement, Cobell Indian Trust
Settlement, and the Verizon Wireless FTC Litigation. Prior to co-
founding JND Legal Administration, she served as chief operating
officer at Garden City Group and as a class action business
analyst at Perkins Coie. Keough earned a Juris Doctor, Master of
Science in Finance and Bachelor of Arts from Seattle University.
A passionate advocate for women leaders, Keough was named a "Woman
Worth Watching" in 2015 by Profiles in Diversity Journal. In 2013,
Keough was profiled by CNN for her success in bringing gender
diversity to her company's management team and mentoring peer
employees on finding the balance between the rigors of work and
motherhood.
"I'm very proud of our accomplishments in 2016, including
launching our government services line and integrating eDiscovery
tools across our nationally renowned offerings," said Keough. "I
look forward to building on our success and using our
comprehensive offerings to help clients navigate complex cases,
while saving them time, money and other valuable resources."
For more information about JND Legal Administration, visit:
www.JNDLA.com.
About JND Legal Administration
JND Legal Administration is a management and administration
company delivering service lines in class action, bankruptcy,
eDiscovery, government services and mass tort. JND's team of
industry veterans is passionate about providing outstanding
service to clients. Armed with decades of expertise and a powerful
set of tools, JND has deep experience expertly navigating the
intricacies of class action settlements, corporate restructuring,
eDiscovery, mass tort claims and government services. JND is
trusted by law firms, government agencies and Fortune 500
companies across the nation. The company is backed by Stone Point
Capital and has offices in Colorado, Minnesota, New York, North
Carolina, Washington and Washington, D.C. For more information
about JND, visit www.JNDLA.com or contact info@JNDLA.com
*********
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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2017. 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 * * *